Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington ballot measures/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Washington ballot measures

edit

List of Washington ballot measures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on it for a while and, after implementing some feedback from Reywas92 (talk · contribs) and SounderBruce (talk · contribs), I think it's ready for some more eyes on it. The list collects every ballot measure since Washington joined the union, everything is sourced directly to the results or to reliable secondary sources, and the previous formatting and inline citation issues with the list have been resolved. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Measure Name becomes !scope=col | Measure Name.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16 becomes !scope=row |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done - That was clear, thank you! ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 20:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Checking back in - Any other issues of note? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Drive-by comments
  • No article should start with "This is a list...." Find a way to write a more engaging opening sentence
Done - Does that look any better? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think that, rather than having lots and lots of tables, some of which are tiny, it would look better if they were all merged into one table, with the year as a column
I remember considering this when I started, but I was concerned that with a very long table, readability/navigation might be impacted. I may wait to see if others have input there before making a bigger change like that. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think, although it's been a while since I've had a formal English class) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Image review — Pass

edit
It could, but that's a local proposition and not a larger ballot measure. I'll look around, and, if need be, can probably upload something. I could add more generic images next to the more historic ballot measures, maybe? Photo of a women's suffrage rally next to the initiative that granted them the right to vote? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 08:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image (File:Washington Equal Suffrage Association put up posters in Seattle in 1910.jpg) looks great! Thats fine, pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kavyansh (and thanks for tweaking the image settings, I'm not used to all the options there). What do you think about this image, of people celebrating after Ref 74 passed? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Licence wise, its good. No issues if you add it, as long as it doesn't clutter any table. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Further comments
  • Washington is linked on the second mention rather than the first. I'd also be tempted to put "The US state of Washington" to avoid confusion with Washington DC
Done - I had linked on the second because I thought it would look weird to have the first word be a wikilink, but with the phrasing change it looks much more natural. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gather an number of signatures" => "gather a number of signatures"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "equal or greater to 8%" => "equal to or greater than 8%"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approved by a majority of the people next general election" - think there are some words missing here
Changed to "approved by a majority of voters in the next general election." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initiatives and referendum have become" => "initiatives and referendums have become"
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "17 of his initiatives have made it" - any way to avoid starting a sentence with digits?
Changed to "He has had 17 initiatives be placed on the ballot as of 2021." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An amendment legalizing and defining the state's power to use eminent domain" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "eminent domain"? I for one have absolutely no idea wat it is......
Wikilinked (it's the right of the government to seize private property, usually to make room for highways and the like). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requiring employers offer additional pay" => "requiring that employers offer additional pay"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An amendment requiring all voters be taxpayers" => "An amendment requiring that all voters be taxpayers"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "creating distinct areas for trolling" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "trolling", as in this context I presume it doesn't mean being rude to people on the internet :-)
Wikilinked (should've caught that earlier, it's a very boring method of fishing) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A measure requiring unions provide employers" => "A measure requiring that unions provide employers"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris! I know this one gets pretty boring with how mundane so many of these measures are :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "A measure to ban television advertising of alcoholic beverages between 8 AM and 10 PM" - isn't it more normal to write 8:00am?
Fixed - I'd always written time that way but I checked MOS and you're right. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specific stretches of the Columbia River if it would interefere" - typo on last word
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing them to sell spirituous liquor" - is "spirituous" a word?
Changed (it is a word but it's synonymous with "alcoholic") ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An amendment replacing the 40 mill property tax limit" - what does "40 mill" mean? $40 million?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This measure was one of two options - The other option exempted some hazardous waste from taxation" - don't think "the" should be capitalised there as it's all one sentence (this one also does need a full stop at the end).
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Kavyansh.Singh

edit

A fascinating list which has clearly taken a lot of effort. Few comments below:

  • The US state of Washington — Can link U.S. state
  • This section also required that details of the amendment should be published in newspapers across the state before election day. — uncited?
  • 8% of the votes in the lead v. at least eight percent of the voting population (emphasis mine)
  • Link Oregon
  • In the time since this amendment's passage, initiatives and referendums have become a prominent piece of Washington's electoral landscape. — uncited?
  • In 1910 the people → "In 1910, people"
  • making it the fifth state → "making Washington the fifth state"
  • Of those, only two have not since been overturned by the courts. — that means rest all are overturned?
  • Initiatives to the People are placed — why is P capitalized? Is "Initiatives to the People" a formal term. Same goes with "Initiatives to the Legislature"
  • They require a two-thirds vote in the state legislature before being placed on the ballot. — uncited?
  • 193,,686 — typo?
  • 180179 — no comma?
  • 574, 856 —Initiative to the People 49 extra space?
  • office of Governor — MOS:JOBTITLE says G shouldn't be capitalized. Check for all other instances.
  • $40,000,000 — will Template:Inflation be useful here?
  • in Grant, Adams, Chelan, and Douglas counties — do we have links for these counties
  • Side note: Initiative to the People 49 did not pass!
  • Production — why is P capitalized?
  • In these sortable tables, every thing which deserves a link should be linked every single time. WP:OL doesn't apply.
  • mounts to $1000 — missing a comma
  • Department of Social Security — do we have a link?
  • between 8:00am and 10 pm — why '8:00' but not '10:00'? Why no space between '8:00' and am? Also, add a non-breaking space
  • Daylight Savings Time — why capitalised?
  • What is the difference between "Initiative to the People 193" and "Initiative to the People 210"
  • More to come
Thanks for all this! I'm making notes of a lot of these things so that I don't run into them again in future articles. I fixed most of these, with a couple notes. With Tim Eyman, yes, his others have all been overturned or partially overturned by the courts. I switched the phrasing there to "overturned or modified," which should be clearer. As far as "Initiatives to the People" and "Legislature" goes, I couldn't find any formal guidance, but they are capitalized everywhere I could find on the state elections website. There might be some minor phrasing differences between 193 and 210, but if there were they weren't significant enough to change the description on the ballot - oftentimes the same measure appears in several different elections before passing or being abandoned. On the inflation template, I added that to measures that talk about taxation and budget allocations, not the very small amounts relating to people's pensions and salaries - let me know if you want me to add it there too! And I remember chuckling about Initiative to the People 49 for a while when I added that section! ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • equivalent to $83,444,206 in 2020 — can we round this off to nearest 1000, same goes with other equivalent templates.
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • replacing the $40 mill property tax — mill here is Mill or Million?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - I used km2 for the conversion, I'm not sure what the metric standard would be besides that. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • thirty to fifty-five years v. 21 to 19 — consistency needed
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • adding term limits for governor, Lieutenant governor, State Legislature — why capiytalized?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 911 system can be linked to 9-1-1
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the hunting — do we really need a link to hunting?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide — do we have a link?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • within 25 feet — convert to meter as-well
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • that contain GMOs to be — why not write the full form at the first instance
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a short description to the page.
Added, although I think the page title is descriptive enough, hence why I had it set to "none" ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to set it back to "none". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "A measure requiring long-term care works receive background checks" - presumably that should be workers rather than works?
  • Wikilink GMOs?
  • "A measure authorizing courts to remove individual's access to firearms" => "A measure authorizing courts to remove individuals' access to firearms"
  • Notes B and F should not have full stops
  • Think that's me finally done :-) I'll wait and see what other people think about merging the little tables into larger ones, either by decade/era or overall...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Chris - Fixed those issues :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Reywas92
  • Should include that initiatives to people have six months to collect signatures but to the legislature has ~ten. And referendums just ~three months after the legislative session.
  • Referendums require 4% signatures not 8 like the others (per Senate Joint Resolution 4)
  • Perhaps there can be some info about campaign finance and the need for paid signature gatherers.
  • "placed on the ballot by the legislature in order to gauge public interest" implies that it's nonbinding, but it would in fact adopt into law
  • I don't think the Ref 74 photo is very illustrative of the topic, the focus is on the street sign and you just see people sitting.
  • A second instance of daylight saving time should be fixed.
  • Template:Elections in Washington (state) sidebar/Category:Washington (state) ballot measures links a handful of measures that have articles; these should all be linked in the relevant tables.
  • I-776 and 747 were also overturned by the supreme court. Might be others as well.
  • House Joint Resolution 6: capitalize Supreme Court, link to Washington Supreme Court
  • Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 8210: specify that chief justice would be elected by members of the court not the public as I'd interpret that. It also allowed for reduction of the court's size but didn't require it.

Thanks again for your improvements to this unique list! Reywas92Talk 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Reywas92 - I believe I've fixed everything except the Ref 74 photo as I personally think the photo fits, but if anybody else has an issue with it I'll remove it. I added a paragraph talking about paid signature gathering but I'm not sure if there's anything unique to ballot measures to discuss for general campaign finance, other than the general criticisms that get applied to every electoral process. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like this would be more illustrative than a street sign. Otherwise support and any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92Talk 17:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

edit

I'll try to take a look – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, 162 out of 189 sources are from "Office of the Secretary of State". I know that sourcing requirement for FLC is not that strong; we accept Billboard for Billboard lists, IUNC for species lists, etc., so this is not a major issue. But I just want to know your approach as for finding sources.
  • In which cases is "Office of the Secretary of State" italicized? In which cases is it not?
  • What makes HistoryLink a WP:RS? The particular piece used ([2]) has been authored by David Wilma and Kit Oldham. Are they both subject matter expert; they don't have Wikipedia articles, I guess.
  • Regardless, there is inconsistency in HistoryLink v. www.historylink.org v. History Link. Also, Ref#2 and #5 are same, should be merged.
  • "in American English" — why is this important to mention?
  • "June 8, 2018" v. "2012-12-06" — inconsistency in date style, this is just an example; there are various instances like thing throughout the article. You'l need to decide and be consistent whether to use "YYYY-MM-DD" or "Month DD, YYYY"
  • Ref#11: "Washington Secretary of State Blog" — what makes this different from a normal blog? Blogs are not WP:RS
    • That blanket statement is wrong. Blogs are just not necessarily RS when self-published by an unreliable author. Of course the Secretary of State is a reliable source when publishing things on its own website about things the Office oversees, and its presentation format is irrelevant. Reywas92Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BLOGS states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. It being published by SOS satisfies that it "reliable" publication, but that does not necessarily make it RS. Do we know who the author(s) is/are, and are they "subject-matter expert" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It literally says the author is "Secretary Of State's Office" so yes I would expect whichever employee wrote this on behalf of and with oversight of the office is an expert at their own job and what the office does, just as any other content (likewise unsigned) on the site would be reliable. I do not think that name should even redirect to this section because nowadays many organizations and public agencies use the blog post format to publish information, but they are not self-published sources in the sense of an individual publishing it alone like a blogspot page. Reywas92Talk 20:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#12: "www.spokesman.com" — this should be The Spokesman-Review
  • There is inconsistency in linking of media outlets/websites — Oregon Public Broadcasting is linked. Reuters is not. Suggesting to be consistent
  • Ref#17: "Crosscut.com" — what makes it a WP:RS?
  • Ref#18: Washington Policy Center — This is a blog. Introduction of our article on Washington Policy Center says "The Washington Policy Center (WPC) is a conservative think tank based in the state of Washington. The organization's stated mission is 'to promote sound public policy based on free-market solutions.'" I am not confident if it is neutral or reliable source; even keeping aside that the particular piece used in a blog.
    • Just because a blog is a format that any random person can publish on a variety of websites doesn't mean that the concept of organizations posting pieces as a web log is suspect. The WPC clearly takes responsibility for the articles its employees write in this part of the site. Reywas92Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BLOGS states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Can we verify if the author, Mariya Frost, is an "established subject-matter expert". Are there better sources available which can be used in place of this? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't self-published by Frost, it's published by the WRC. This section doesn't apply to the concept of blogs in general even if that's the shortcut name: Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert doesn't apply here. They do think she's enough of an expert to be their transportation director, but yes their ideological bent makes them suboptimal though, even as this is an anodyne statement to source. Reywas92Talk 20:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various citations with titles like "Initiative and Referenda Handbook - 2021", "Elections Search Results - November 1908 General", "Elections Search Results - November 1993 General", etc., etc. — They need en-dash (–) in place of a normal hyphen.
  • Ref#129: "176 Wn.2d 808, LEAGUE OF EDUC. VOTERS V. STATE" — change to sentence case, and why is that source reliable? Same with Ref#162, #169

Thats mostly it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Reywas92, few responses above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, Reywas, we are selecting featured lists, which "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". I agree that our criteria about sources is not that strong, but I think if there are better sources available, one should prefer them. And as the source reviewer in this case, I think I should ask about it. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Logging that I have seen this, but am busy this weekend with a Wikimedia UK training event and an assessment deadline that I've been putting off. I will try and reply to everything by Tuesday. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Okay, 162 out of 189 sources are from "Office of the Secretary of State". I know that sourcing requirement for FLC is not that strong; we accept Billboard for Billboard lists, IUNC for species lists, etc., so this is not a major issue. But I just want to know your approach as for finding sources
I mean, this is just where the results are published. For something like election results I would much rather cite the actual results than a news article about them (and for ballot measures it's rare for them all to be reported on at the same time anyway), so this just streamlines the process a lot. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*In which cases is "Office of the Secretary of State" italicized? In which cases is it not?
The cite web automatically italicizes it as the name of the website. It doesn't italicize it when it's listed as a publisher in the cite book template. Presumably it is getting the proper format. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* What makes HistoryLink a WP:RS?
It's staffed and written by professional historians in Washington State and is chaired by a range of education, history, and museum professionals. Both Wilma and Oldham have published several books on Washington State history. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Regardless, there is inconsistency in HistoryLink v. www.historylink.org v. History Link. Also, Ref#2 and #5 are same, should be merged.
Fixed - Thanks for pointing that out. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "in American English" — why is this important to mention?
I don't see where this is? I searched the page for those words and could not find that appearing anywhere. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "June 8, 2018" v. "2012-12-06" — inconsistency in date style, this is just an example; there are various instances like thing throughout the article. You'l need to decide and be consistent whether to use "YYYY-MM-DD" or "Month DD, YYYY"
This was a byproduct of only working on this page intermittently for a couple of years. They should all be fixed now (I opted for "Month DD, YYYY"). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#11: "Washington Secretary of State Blog" — what makes this different from a normal blog? Blogs are not WP:RS
Deferring to Reywas92 (talk · contribs) here - It's an official publication of the Secretary of State's office, not some rando. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#12: "www.spokesman.com" — this should be The Spokesman-Review
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* There is inconsistency in linking of media outlets/websites — Oregon Public Broadcasting is linked. Reuters is not. Suggesting to be consistent
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#17: "Crosscut.com" — what makes it a WP:RS?
Again deferring to Reywas92 (talk · contribs), it's an established news agency that meets WP:NEWSORG ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#18: Washington Policy Center — This is a blog. Introduction of our article on Washington Policy Center says "The Washington Policy Center (WPC) is a conservative think tank based in the state of Washington. The organization's stated mission is 'to promote sound public policy based on free-market solutions.'" I am not confident if it is neutral or reliable source; even keeping aside that the particular piece used in a blog.
Looking at Reywas92 (talk · contribs) again, the format is sort of irrelevant because it's not random people, it's an official publication of an established think tank. WPC is as biased as any think tank, but I don't see any indication that they're not reliable. They're not being used to make a contentious statement, just a statement of fact (that Eyman's initiatives have mostly been overturned). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Various citations with titles like "Initiative and Referenda Handbook - 2021", "Elections Search Results - November 1908 General", "Elections Search Results - November 1993 General", etc., etc. — They need en-dash (–) in place of a normal hyphen.
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#129: "176 Wn.2d 808, LEAGUE OF EDUC. VOTERS V. STATE" — change to sentence case, and why is that source reliable? Same with Ref#162, #169
'Fixed sentence case ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that's everything! Let me know if I missed something, @Kavyansh.Singh: ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! As a great Wikipedian once said: "In a few cases, had I been the author I may have done things differently, but so what? The article is a product of much research, gives a comprehensive account [...] and, in my view, is fully deserving of promotion." Passing the source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

edit
  • I think a single para lead is a little lightweight for this major piece of work.
  • Description columns no point in being sortable, it's free text so sorting is meaningless.
  • Check your inflation work, I'm seeing "$300 property tax exemption (equivalent to $0 in 2020)"
  • "Yes Votes" etc, no need for capital V here, this isn't German.
  • Same for "Measure Name".
  • " $1,033,000,000 in" probably $1 billion would do here.
  • "World War One $15 a month" World War I, and you've previously inflated these monetary values. There needs to be a consistent approach to inflating these values, I see many which aren't...
  • What's "poll tax"?

Just a quick pass over. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man Logging that I’ve seen this but don’t have access to a computer to do any editing for at least another week, potentially more. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 15:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Actually, I can't sleep and commandeered one of my uni's laptops to do this while mine is getting repaired.
I think a single para lead is a little lightweight for this major piece of work.
I added an additional paragraph but I don't think it's that great - any advice there would be appreciated. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Description columns no point in being sortable, it's free text so sorting is meaningless.
Fixed this, they are no longer sortable. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check your inflation work, I'm seeing "$300 property tax exemption (equivalent to $0 in 2020)"
Fixed this as well - That's what I get for relying on the find-and-replace feature! ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes Votes" etc, no need for capital V here, this isn't German.
After begrudgingly checking MOS I fixed this (but I don't like it!) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same for "Measure Name".
See above. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"$1,033,000,000 in" probably $1 billion would do here.
Fixed this. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"World War One $15 a month" World War I, and you've previously inflated these monetary values. There needs to be a consistent approach to inflating these values, I see many which aren't...
Fixed everything before the year 2000, which I'm going to use as the cutoff date (unless people want me to just apply it to all).
What's "poll tax"?
It's a tax since made illegal everywhere in the United States designed to prevent certain people (*cough cough*) from voting. I hyper-linked the relevant article. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Washington_ballot_measures/archive1&oldid=1081529764"