Wikipedia:Peer review/2020 Missouri Amendment 2/archive1

2020 Missouri Amendment 2


I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering an FAC push for this page but am unaware of how high the bar is for FA. I am especially unfamiliar with the standard for Featured Article Criteria 1a-c (well written, comprehensive, and using high-quality sources). As well, I am unsure about the relevance of this ballot initiative to a later proposal to set a higher bar for the passage of future ballot initiatives. I think it is not relevant enough to be included in the article, though I would like outside input on that.

Thanks, ~ UN6892  tc 01:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

PCN02WPS
I'll give this one a read - this will be my first PR but I've got some experience at FAC so I'll try to give you some FAC-applicable comments. PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry this took so long but I have some time to give this a look now. Comments are below, I'm just treating this like I would if it were at FAC. Overall the article is very well-done, just some picky things below! PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! I'll get to these in the next two days. ~ UN6892  tc 05:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone through all of your suggestions and implemented them, though some were modified, for example "conservative-leaning" seems better than "conservative-voting" to me. I've added the (attempted) raised bar too. I'll probably leave this open for a bit longer and nominate in August (maybe on the 3rd anniversary of the 2020 primary election). ~ UN6892  tc 15:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. If and when you get this up at FAC, give me a ping and I will give it another look there. Best of luck going forward! PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, as a note: the AP link you provided about the raised bar for future amendments directly mentions this one, so I think it's worth a mention in "Aftermath". PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead and infobox
 * "The measure was supported most in urban areas and opposed by conservatives" → this sounds like a strict dichotomy is being made between urban areas and conservative voters, which is not strictly incorrect but I would set this up differently. Maybe "supported most by liberal voters and opposed by conservatives" or "...and opposed in rural areas"
 * "initiative was implemented in October 2021. Implementation was slow" → slightly repetitive (emphasis is mine)

Background
 * "in conservative states such as" → I would avoid labelling whole states as "conservative"; maybe use "conservative-voting" or something like that

Contents
 * The deadline for the state to implement the specified Medicaid expansion would be July 1, 2021" → is this a part of the amendment or supplementary information? If it's just there to let the reader know when the deadline was, then the present tense sounds out of place and I would change this to "was July 1, 2021", or if you want to keep the sense of unknown surrounding whether it would pass or not, you can use "was to be July 1, 2021"

Campaign
 * "opposed by state Republican politicians such as Governor Mike Parson, who stated that the state could not afford" → a little repetitive here (emphasis is mine)
 * "40 percent of the state budget" → percentages are given with the "%" symbol in the lead ("passed with 53.27% of the vote"), "Results" ("The measure was approved with 53% of the vote"), and "Aftermath" ("with only 7% of newly eligible Missourians"), so either this should be changed to the symbol or all of those instances should be spelled out (though I would go for the former)

Results
 * "approved with 53% of the vote" → indicate that it passed with just over 53% of the vote, not exactly 53%, though you don't have to spell out "53.27%" since that's given right below in the table

Aftermath
 * "The year following the measure's passage" → couldn't hurt to give a date here, though keeping "the year following..." would also be ideal here to give the reader some sense of a timescale
 * "Enrollment in the Medicaid expansion began in October 2021, with Missouri becoming the 38th state to opt into the Medicaid expansion" → this is repetitive (emphasis mine) - to solve this, I would cut the end of the sentence to read "...the 38th state to opt-in."
 * "only 7% of newly eligible Missourians" → "newly-eligible" should be hyphenated since it's a compound adjective
 * "compared to about half in Idaho and Montana" → recommend replacing "about half" to "about 50%", so it's clear you're not trying to say "about half of 7%"
 * "In early 2022, the state found it was taking 70 days to process" → this sentence doesn't have to be about what the state found it was doing, you can just make it about what the state was doing: "In early 2022, the state was taking 70 days..."
 * "passage of the initiative are unsustainable" → the rest of the sentence is past tense, but use of "are" is present tense
 * "However, after" → "However" isn't always a bad thing but I think here you can go without and just say "After a Supreme Court..." (see WP:EDITORIAL)

References
 * I would recommend adding links to  and   parameters in your references, like Missouri Secretary of State in FN 1, The New York Times in FN 2, National Law Review in FN 3 (also note that it's The National Law Review), etc. Remember that duplicating the same link multiple times in the references section is totally fine (Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article. - MOS:REFLINK)
 * Having an identical website and publisher isn't necessary (like "Missouri Secretary of State" in FN 8 or "CNN/Cable News Network" in FN 12 and 13). I'd just fill in "website" in these cases.

Categories
 * Consider adding Category:Medicare and Medicaid (United States)