Talk:2022 Kazakh constitutional referendum

"Tick" and "Cross" marks are not to be used in articles
The infobox uses a green tick mark and a red cross mark to mean "yes" and "no". Aside from the difficulty of red/green colours, the templates for those two symbols state that they are not to be used in articles, because they represent approval or disapproval, respectively: Template:Tick and Template:Xmark. They are therefore not NPOV, which is particularly important in an article about a political event such as a referendum. Unfortunately, they are part of the infobox template and I don't see any way to remove them? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that they don't belong in the middle of text. Their use in an infobox is different, since the infobox is a summary, and it's common to include icons in infoboxes that don't belong in text.  Also, it's not a neutrality problem to use these icons to represent "yes" and "no", since they're common symbols for these meanings, and nobody would see these icons as an indication that Wikipedia is endorsing one perspective.  49.198.51.54 (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Map doesn't comply with accessibility guidelines
I added the "overcoloured" tag to the article, because the map in the infobox uses red/green to show "no" and "yes". I think that breaches the Manual of Style/Accessibility: MOS:COLOUR. Unfortunately, the colours seem to be set in the infobox template and I can't see a way to change them? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can't see any colours at all, you'll see the map in shades of grey. Because each of the colour levels is clearly distinct in darkness from the rest, you'll still be able to interpret the map properly.  Until reading your message, I thought the map was all shades of green, but I can still understand it fine.  49.198.51.54 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

List of the Constitutional Amendments
There should be a list, or a link to another page that has a list of the constitutional amendments. Two early proposed amendments are discussed in the article, but it doesn't say whether or not the second one, on Russian being a co-official language was in the final package. What exactly was passed in the referendum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A9B0:527F:60A0:B484:AF0A:A862 (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. There's not even a "See Also" or external link for it. Seems like a glaring gap in the article. GeoEvan (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"developed"
In this section, the sentence "Qabuldinov did not address whether Russian was widely used in public spheres because the Kazakh language is not fully developed enough to describe everyday life." does not make sense. This is weaselly. In what way is Kazakh not a functioning language? The article does not seem to state this, although I am working off a translation. I believe we should remove this sentence. Ogress 19:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

When will it be effective ?
Do we know when the amended constitution did or will come into effect? I fail to see it on the page, and I think it's an important information. With the language barrer I was unable to find it myself.--Aréat (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)