Talk:Oregon Indoor Clean Air Act

Review?

Noaya97, real quick: typically laws are notable, so I don't think you should expect deletion requests, but it might be difficult to find secondary sources--right now you have only one. The draft is inexplicably short and needs a ton of expansion, and it needs it very quickly. Fortunately that one article you have says "Oregon: A Legislative Pioneer", and that should be a. in the lead, to establish importance and point out why someone should care for this and b. in the DYK hook; I doubt that many people know that this anti-smoking legislative movement was pioneered that early, and out there in Oregon. Time to get to work: I think this is a good topic. Oh, Mwilli95, Noaya follows you on the student list, which means you owe her a decent review--and quickly too, please. Dr Aaij (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Noaya97, me again. I have seen one edit to the draft since this review--so that and a brief comment on another article means two edits in what, thirteen days. I do not see that you've addressed the above comments; the article doesn't even state that the law was passed in Oregeon. There are no secondary sources, still, besides that one single journal article. The paragraph you added isn't quite clear--what do you mean with "deal"? What is "reflect back"? I assume the source you used is this one--but that's a report, and the article needs secondary sources. A smoking ban in 1981, the newspapers must have exploded in Oregon, and perhaps nationwide. Dr Aaij (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

While this is a good start, it seems as though this may end up being a relatively short article. With that begin said, I would consider expanding what sub-topics you have to included more detailed information. Start with your lead. You have included brief specifics about the law itself and the overall goals which is good, but I would definitely do as Dr. Aaij has suggested and include the legislative pioneering qualities of Oregon in regards to anti-smoking since a good lead should reflect the most important information.

I know your first sub-heading is "Exceptions," but I would strongly consider changing this to a sub-heading which explains the specifics of the act. There is not enough information for this to be its own sub-topic unless there was some type of controversy worth documenting about the act's "Exceptions" in this article. Here is a link to a research article regarding the consequences of exemptions in Oregon if you choose to keep it a sub-topic. Don't forget to explain the specifics of the act itself since the only description is in the lead of your article and nowhere else. What is the law? Who or what event pushed for the clean air initiative?

Under the subheading "What's being done," I would try to find and include more examples of what was/is being done as a result of the act. What other laws were created as a result? How many of these laws are still enforced today? As for "Education and awareness," I would expand this paragraph considerably, especially your descriptions of the Tobacco Prevention and Education Program and Measure 44 which I would also consider relisting in your paragraph to correspond with when they were established/enacted (but this is just my personal organization preferences speaking). Also, you wrote that these two together had an economic effect so I would expand on this effect if you can. I am not an expert on this topic, but as you read you may find a connection between a tax increase and the decrease in overall smoking in Oregon. Here is an academic article on the economic impact of clean indoor air laws. Here is another article explaining the possible policy interventions oriented towards reducing youth hookah smoking.

I would also consider adding in a sub-topic which provides information on the social effects of the act (if you can find any in credible sources). If the push to create this act was a social movement, perhaps you could find sources that provide information on this movement and explain it briefly. This may be related to why Oregon is a "Legislative Pioneer." Was Oregon the leader of the anti-smoking movement in America (or the world)? How accepted was this law once it was first passed? Was there obvious opposition from smokers compared to non-smokers? Are there any laws proposed to rid of this act? You may be able to find an article describing the opposition of the tobacco industry. Was there a significant decrease in smoking rates as a result of this law? I will admit, the tricky part to writing a sub-topic like this is making sure you find sources that reference Oregon and/or the specifically so that you're not straying away from your article topic. You might even consider creating a sub-heading about the health effects on Oregon citizens since the law was passed. I'm sure in 36 years there has been an overall change in health regarding second hand smoke.

I know this is a lot of feedback and that you may not find enough sources to expand it as much as you'd like, but there is no other article on Wikpedia regarding indoor clean air acts so you really have the upper hand here. Happy editing! V00d00Child (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Addressing these questions is a minimum. Secondary sources is the name of the game--you keep adding primary ones. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• [1], [2], [3], [4]. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK- Did you know that if a business does not comlply with this law it will be fined $500 daily for each violation. Dr Aaij (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noaya97 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this doesn't help much: a. the reviews here on this talk page are longer than the article; b. those comments do not seem to have been addressed; c. there's all kinds of even minor problems with the article; d. one of which is, it's not even in main space, but still in user space; e. as for DYK, I don't think that an article with so few secondary sources will be accepted and, finally, f. the hook isn't verified in the article. Dr Aaij (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)