Template:Did you know nominations/California Assembly Bill 1084 (2021)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
California Assembly Bill 1084 (2021)
- ... that beginning in 2024, some California stores will be required to have a gender-neutral children's section?
- ALT1: ... that California's requirement that certain stores display a gender-neutral children's section is meant to aid consumers in comparing similar items while shopping?
- ALT2: ... that beginning in 2024, some stores in California may be fined if they do not have a gender-neutral children's section?
- Reviewed: Maloja Wind
- Comment: My first article about a law, or at least the first that made it to mainspace. Feedback and improvements are welcome.
Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
- Ezlev, while not strictly a fault with this article, there is a big yellow template suggesting it's an orphan. I'm not going to review it (I try to stay away from culture war topics), but before someone does, I suggest that you find the articles where wikilinking the article about the bill could be suitable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ezlev: Since it has been over a week since the nomination and a QPQ has not been provided, please provide one within the next seven days. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- QPQ added, Narutolovehinata5, thanks! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, this is ready for a full review. I think the main hook is probably the best option due to having the straightest and least complicated hook fact, but I will leave the final decision to the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Very interesting article, as always. New enough, long enough. Earwig only catches quotes; I'll try to fix the unreliable source, otherwise cited reliably. Hooks are directly cited and are interesting. Compliant with policy, QPQ done. The main hook is probably best, but I leave it to the promoter since they're all good. Urve (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
