Talk:2010 Oklahoma State Question 755/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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)

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)

Thanks for the feedback; I'll get to expanding soon. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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)
• 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)

Contents:

• What original ballot title is it referring to?
  • I've mentioned this now. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

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?