Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Florida Right To Clean Water

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears that the concerns regarding neutrality cannot be addressed within a reasonable timeframe. Hooks and articles featured on DYK need to adhere to NPOV, and at this time the issues are apparently insurmountable. This does not necessarily mean the topic cannot ever be featured on DYK, and the article can be nominated in the future if it is brought to GA status. But right now, it appears that now is not the time.

DYK toolbox

Florida Right To Clean Water

(
)

Created by 83d40m (talk). Self-nominated at 11:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC).

Note by 83d40m: This alternate suggestion misstates this amendment to the existing county charter by the voters. This was not a county taking action to "charter a right" I propose this as a better alternative:


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - The first paragraph contains information that is not repeated and sourced later in the article. All information must be cited. Citations should appear at the end of the relevant phrase, sentence or paragraph to which they apply.
  • Neutral: No - The phrase "measures of the type Florida voters have repeatedly supported, but often have seen circumvented by legislators" could use more neutral language, e.g. "measures of the type that Florida voters have repeatedly supported, but legislators have not enacted". Also to claim "Local newspapers throughout the state are publishing articles, columns, and letters to the editor" I think you need more than one supporting citation. I would encourage you to add more factual and less opinionated sources when possible (cf. here and here), except when specifically discussing reactions.
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - The source for the hook supports the relevant factual information, but that source also includes some very strong opinions and language. I would recommend adding a more neutrally written source to cite the hook fact in the Wikipedia article, after "That was the first such county charter amendment in the United States to provide a legal basis to protect the waters within its boundaries" (cf. here). You can leave the opinionated citation to follow the rest of that sentence where it's clear that opinions and responses to the legislation are being discussed.
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: ALT0b is 200 characters and ALT0c is 120, so both of those are acceptable length. The others have been struck. @83d40m: Some work on sourcing is needed: see feedback above. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron and Mary Mark Ockerbloom - Could you please advise me? Not being familiar with the process for a nomination for DYK, I do not know whether I am expected to do anything further, nor whether the process is complete. I have not received any notifications. Mary Mark Ockerbloom — I see that several editors, including you, have made contributions to the article. Is that sufficient? If not, what do I have to do? Also, is one notified whether the DYK is going to be accepted and, if so, when it will used? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, 83D40m! Looks like MMO has left a few comments on your nomination that still need to be addressed – if you've addressed them as much as you can, I'm sure they'll be around to update you on the status of the nom. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
"Florida voters" is inaccurate since only one county voted on the measure. (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Good catch, Buidhe: I've corrected ALT0c to read "voters in Orange County, Florida" so that it will be clear that not all voters in Florida were involved. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
83D40m, ideally you would make the corrections suggested above (look for the red x's). Most of them are for improvements to the citations. Then leave a message here so that I can check the changes and confirm the DYK nomination. If I as the reviewer make more than minor changes (like correcting spelling or punctuation or copying an existing citation to multiple sentences for a hook), then I would need to request that someone else do a new review to confirm the DYK nomination. (Unless this policy has changed?) I believe that moving the confirmed DYK to the main page will put a message on your talk page to let you know it has appeared, but that is a separate stage of the process. Best wishes, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Mary Mark Ockerbloom you have reinserted the name of the county into the hook. I had removed it to shorten the hook as suggested earlier. Thank you, I prefer it defined and do not think the few additional words are detrimental to the hook. I have followed suggestions and provided the link to the state site where the procedure for initiatives to amend the state constitution are laid out. I have rephrased the sentence regarding media coverage. That presents a problem in that the initiative is very new and opposition to it has not appeared as yet. I think that will appear only when the initiative advances past the next hurtle to appearing on the ballot—because those who might oppose it are not likely to expend funds before the judicial review is triggered by the gathering of the number of signed petitions that are stipulated for the review. The thought might be to wait until the place on the ballot is assured when the final number of acceptable petitions are submitted. That will take time for the grassroots group to gather and submit. So I can not provide negative media references if they do not exist and I thought that limiting the examples to a very well thought out one was better than providing several redundant ones in the same vein but of lesser quality. I have plenty of supportive ones that have appeared on sources that might not qualify for inclusion under WP standards (blogs, websites, newsletters, etc.) so refrained from including them. I can plan on adding negative media reports and such as they appear, however, to provide "balance" (those who oppose having clean waters—curiously—seem difficult to find at the moment:) and the same for people who are "neutral" to the idea, maybe they will appear when it becomes more of an imminent threat). Please advise whether you think I have satisfied the changes needed. I will try to satisfy each comment or suggestion. Thanks for your help. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Theleekycauldron and 83d40m:, I've made enough changes that I should recuse myself from the final review and pass it to someone else - theleekycauldron, would you be able to take it on? I have spent some time making a couple of wording changes, converting citations to templates, and adding new citations to address my concerns with the article. Also, I changed the bold term starting the article from Florida Right To Clean Water.org to Florida Right To Clean Water, to match the official article title. The website adds .org but the initiative is Florida Right To Clean Water. All the best, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, thank you for all of your help. Apparently the name of the organization includes the ".org" and it should be noted in the bold. I resolved that by making a redirect. Perhaps that should be the reverse, with the ".org" in the title of the page and a redirect for the initiative, would that be a problem or should it not be a concern? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, do you have time to take this over? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  • To be completely honest with you, 83d40m, I don't think I do. I'm quite sorry about that, but keeping up with this has been more draining than I would have guessed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, am not familiar with the process, theleekycauldron, so will rely on those of you who are. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Going to start from scratch on this review.
  • Article was new enough and long enough. Nominator was QPQ-exempt.
  • I agree 0b should not be considered as too long. 0c is...okay, I guess.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool flags yellow because of the inclusion of the text and from Ballotpedia. Ballotpedia text is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and can't be imported into Wikipedia; see Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. Reduce the use of Ballotpedia text, though I do think that quoting the language of the actual initiative and initial summary is fair with attribution.
  • I do feel like there are some neutrality issues still. This passage I don't particularly like: Local news media have published articles, columns, and letters to the editor supporting the newly introduced initiative,[2][20][21][22] such as Why we need the Florida Right to Clean and Healthy Waters Amendment by Jim Tatum that appeared in The Gainesville Sun on May 24.[23] I understand that it's early, but is there any coverage of opposition to this measure? I feel like there are more editorial pieces than there should be as references.
@83d40m and Mary Mark Ockerbloom: I really want to see the neutrality issue worked on further, and the Ballotpedia use needs to be pared back. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Sammi Brie, please see whether this may be added to the Ballotpedia notation the way you prefer, https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/constitutional-amendment-would-allow-lawsuits-against-state-agencies-for-harm-to-florida-bodies-of-water/ it has a strong copyright statement, however. How can that cover the short language of the public proposal? I also think that including the short language is very beneficial to the article, so I agree with your view on keeping that. Perhaps having an additional source to include will ease your concern.
Just conducted several searches again for negative items to "balance", but again, this is very early (and it remains unlikely to expect arguments for dirty and unhealthy waters). This proposal was made public in April 2022. The negative items found relate to other proposals that have a different basis, such as a right to nature element or providing the opportunity for frivolous law suits. They are not aspects of this proposal. All of the negative items found relate to those other proposals. One must screen carefully for the date and the exact proposal.
Support from community and environmental organizations is what I am finding and I presume that until opposition appears, media will wait for coverage beyond the initial coverage already given and providing editorial opportunities to the community via op-ed and letters to the editor. They only are voicing approval. Seems that this proposal has been crafted carefully to avoid the arguments used against the previous ones. Think that until it gets on the ballot, campaigns against it will not materialize. Why would opponents expend funds before it passes the state supreme court review and is up for a vote on the 2024 ballot? The issue is nonpartisan, all state voters would have to be contacted to persuade them against signing the petitions. Signature gathering will proceed daily throughout the state until the fall of 2024. Opposition marketing would require massive funding. Citizens of the state have shown support for this issue consistently, so willingness to sign a petition to be able to vote on it is likely. Do not see a way around this at the moment without making what would be OR or an assessment of why none has appeared to date, both failing to reach your objective. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that this nomination is going to be successful. It's not that I don't think this is a worthy issue or that it's not notable. It's that, at this embryonic stage, any coverage is going to be favorable coverage, and the article gives too much weight to op-eds and letters to the editor—making it fail the neutrality criterion in a way that I suspect will likely be intractable for a couple of years. I do suggest you add that source, trim back Ballotpedia, and consider which sources are reliable and which are actually useful to describe the views of supporters, but I can't see this going to DYK. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Sammi Brie, although I understand your personal judgment, I think the process should proceed. The article is informative and presents realities regarding how such actions by citizens may lead to enactment of significant change in their government, how civics works. If they do not rise to the occasion and take up the tasks only citizens can do, such desires of the people would never overcome the obstacles encountered. The current status is a profound reality in that process and explicates the lengthy nature of such complex processes. The county charter is an accomplished step, recognizing it as the dyk certainly should not be a concern. Environmentalists are heralding its importance as an achievement. That is not embryonic. It being the first completed step in an eventual development of a state constitution amendment provides better understanding to our readers. The balance sought could be seen as the contrast shown between the accomplished county charter amendment with that required for a state constitution amendment and, the differences in the natures of the two amendments (rights of nature in the one and the rights of the citizens in the other). Plenty of dyk notations about aspects of our articles cover things in development and interesting aspects of them, why not this? Will invest the time in the tweaks you suggest if there is support for the nomination, please let me know. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Was told tonight that media reports now are appearing in support of "organizations with permission to pollute" that oppose the proposed amendment — will explore these, perhaps there are some that may provide balance in order to satisfy the neutrality aspect. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Sammi Brie should I make the edits you suggested and provide the new data that may satisfy neutrality? Am unsure of the status of the nomination, is it still in play? _ _ _ _
@83d40m: The nomination is closed, but please do take my suggestions to improve the page! Suggestions unheeded are a waste of everyone's time. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Florida_Right_To_Clean_Water&oldid=1101418796"