Talk:2010 Oklahoma State Question 755/GA1

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

Nominator: 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. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 05:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

, 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. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 06:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback; I'll get to expanding soon. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , just a quick check-in since it's been about a week. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 20:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) 15:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm in no rush, but any update on the timeframe? The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 04:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Should have more time tomorrow. For real this time :) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 14:24, 18 July 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 &#124; contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've also added the numbering to the Contents section. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:47, 19 July 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 &#124; contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Contents:
 * What original ballot title is it referring to?
 * I've mentioned this now. Elli (talk &#124; 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 &#124; 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.
 * Having a separate section, and linking polls like this, is standard practice in election articles. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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
 * 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?