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)

Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

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

Did you know nomination[edit]

(

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]