Talk:2010 Oklahoma State Question 755

2010 Oklahoma State Question 755 is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by Elli (talk | contribs) at 04:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

A fact from 2010 Oklahoma State Question 755 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 May 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the U.S. state of Oklahoma was not allowed to ban Sharia law?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2010 Oklahoma State Question 755.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Oklahoma wasn't allowed to ban Sharia law? Source: HuffPost
- ALT1: ... that a measure to ban Sharia law in Oklahoma was inspired by an overturned legal case in New Jersey? Source: CBS News
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Le Touquet

Created by Elli (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 20 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Elli (talk | contribs) 04:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I personally think the first hook is great. It certainly got my attention. The article itself is long, was moved to the mainspace just today, is based on reliable sources, and looks fully complete. My only potential concern is that the hook doesn't explicitly state that it was struck down in court, but I think that can probably be inferred as is. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though Earwig found likely copyvio, it's basing that off of a direct quote from the contents of the proposal, an open and free document that is properly attributed to, so it shouldn't be a violation. I think this is all in order. Still, felt it should be mentioned in case the author wants to paraphrase the contents of the proposal or if an administrator takes issue with it. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah as the author I generally don't think quoting the direct ballot title of the proposal is a problem (and imo paraphrasing would be less informative to our readers than seeing what voters saw). Elli (talk | contribs) 09:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Oklahoma State Question 755/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]

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.
- I've mentioned this in the Contents section. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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".
- Fixed. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contents:

What original ballot title is it referring to?
- I've mentioned this now. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like there's something missing here. Is there anything else to say on how the contents were formulated or what role Edmondson had?
- Tried to explain a bit better? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
- Having a separate section, and linking polls like this, is standard practice in election articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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?