Talk:2009 Maine Question 1/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 12:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination. PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 12:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @PCN02WPS, Sorry for the ping I just want to know if you are making any progress. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there - I try to avoid taking this long on reviews (and I apologize for doing so) though my recent move back to school and the beginning of classes have impacted my productivity on Wikipedia; I will do my best to get to this soon. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your patience very much. I have added comments below and the nomination is on hold. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @PCN02WPS, Thank you for the review! I have addressed all of the comments and I ask for you to review them to see if they are correct. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good! Some formatting issues remain with references but that's not a GA requirement so I'm happy to give this a pass, well done! PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * "The measure passed 53%–47% on November 3, 2009" → should be "53–47%" per MOS:PERCENT
 * Done.


 * "was reversed by Maine voters three years later when voters approved" → repetition (emphasis mine)
 * Reworded

Legislation

 * "On April 30, 2009, the Senate rejected an amendment" → link Maine Senate
 * Done


 * "and on the following day, Gov. John Baldacci" → since there's no need to conserve space here, you can expand to the full "Governor"
 * Done


 * On a more broad note, a section titled "legislation" would lead me to believe that there is more detailed information about the bill itself, so perhaps something to that effect could be added (although I recognize that the issue of the bill is relatively straightforward in concept)
 * Expanded the topic

Ballot question efforts

 * "September 2, 2009, the Secretary of State of Maine verified" → since Maine is the only state being discussed you could probably pipe the link to just display "secretary of state" (in lowercase, as well, since the name of the individual is not mentioned, and probably doesn't need to be in this case)
 * Done


 * "verified that the opponents had submitted" → while the context and a couple readings make this clear, I would state explicitly that "opponents" here refers to the opponents of the original bill itself, and not the opponents of the veto effort, who are noted as "[opposing] the veto" in the sentence prior
 * Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onegreatjoke (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Polling

 * Dates should be in mdy (month day, year) format since this article deals with the United States
 * Done


 * Polling companies here can be linked, including Research 2000 and Public Policy Polling. "Democracy Corps" doesn't have an article and Pan Atlantic is about a jazz album so you can leave those without links.
 * Done

Results

 * The prose in this section is nearly identical to that used in the "Polling" section; is there anything different that could be said either here or there, other than a repetition of the ballot question and the "Yes" and "No" votes?
 * Reworded the section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onegreatjoke (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Post-election

 * "attempts to force the National Organization for Marriage" → change to past tense
 * Done


 * Do the individuals on the donors list have any individual significance? It's a good thing to have on the page but knowing that Sean Fieler donated a million and a quarter dollars to this campaign without knowing who he is in the first place is not as helpful as it may seem to the ordinary reader. Same goes for Caster, Kurtz, and Brown (especially, given he donated several orders of magnitude less than the others)
 * Deleted the donors list