Jump to content

Talk:2010 Oklahoma State Question 755/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Elli (talk · contribs) 04:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 05:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Looks interesting! It's a very brief article, so I should have a full review up shortly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elli, here's the review. The main issue here is just that there isn't enough; what's already there is pretty much good to go. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback; I'll get to expanding soon. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, just a quick check-in since it's been about a week. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: sorry about the delay; my personal life has gotten quite busy so I haven't had much time to dig in and work on this more. I should have more time this week if that's alright. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli I'm in no rush, but any update on the timeframe? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should have more time tomorrow. For real this time :) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, the review has been open for a little over a month, and it looks like there are still some areas that need attention. Do you think it will be ready to promote soon? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: honestly, not sure. I've addressed many of the issues you raised, but I agree that the article isn't nearly as broad as it should be and I've been having trouble finding the motivation to work on it. So if you'd like to close the review I won't be upset as I've taken far too long on this. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing now. I hope to see this renominated soon! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Nothing in the first sentence here is actually supported by the body: "State Question 755", "Save Our State Amendment", "legislatively-referred", "on November 2, 2010", and "alongside the 2010 Oklahoma elections" are all unique to the lead without any mention or source in the body.

Background:

  • The amendment was introduced – Since this is the first paragraph of the body, it shouldn't refer to anything previously mentioned. There are a few ways this could be reworded, but the first mention of the amendment/measure should introduce it.
  • This section would be a good place to describe when and how it got its name. Something like "the measure was added to the ballot as State Question 755". Maybe something about when/how it took the name "Save Our State Amendment" as well.
  • Was there any political activity or debate about Sharia or international law specific to Oklahoma before it was put on the ballot, or was it just the New Jersey incident?
  • The second sentence has two clauses in a row that start with "with".

Contents:

Support and opposition:

  • The amendment was supported by most legislators, with only ten in the House and two in the Senate voting against the measure – Is there a party breakdown on this? Where Republicans and Democrats fell would be helpful information.
  • I suggest a descriptor for ACT for America, otherwise the reader doesn't know what kind of organization it is unless they click the link.
  • Islamic groups also opposed the measure – Who is "Islamic groups"? Right now only a guy from the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City is mentioned.

Polling:

  • This feels like it could be part of the support and opposition section, or at least a subsection, instead of its own very short stand-alone section.
  • Maybe this use warrants an exception, but it's best to avoid external links in the body. The polls can be formatted as references.

Results:

  • Is there no other information about voter demographics or turnout?
  • Maybe this section could also say the date it was voted on and that it was in conjunction with the elections.

Aftermath:

  • "Clearly" sounds like editorializing unless it's specifically part of the legal finding. I suggest taking an exact quote of "abundantly clear".
  • Any information about why the Senate had so little interest relative to the House?

Spot checks:

  • Schlachtenhaufen (2010) – Good.
  • Banda (2011) – The amendment was part of a nationwide movement against Sharia law, following a case in New Jersey is contradicted by ACLU's Daniel Mach said Oklahoma is the only state to specifically target Sharia, as well as international law.
  • Weigel (2011) – Good.
  • Toensing (2018) – Good.
  • Reilly (2013) – Good.

Broad coverage:

  • Looking through the sources, it seems that a lot of additional information is still there. The article doesn't have to be comprehensive, but I personally advocate WP:SOURCEMINEing. It's not like there's a risk of the article getting too long with lots of details.
  • I don't see any sort of scholarly analysis or legal commentary. A Google Scholar search says that it definitely exists. Again, I'm not going to ask that all of it be added (though that would be great), but at least a basic overview of legal/scholarly analysis is necessary for GA.
  • Was there any campaigning for or against the amendment, besides Gabriel's speeches?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Oklahoma_State_Question_755/GA1&oldid=1237690593"