Talk:2020 Missouri Amendment 2

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that supporters of a 2020 ballot initiative to expand Medicaid in Missouri did not use the words "Medicaid expansion" to describe their proposal in some campaign material? Source: NPR
  • ALT1: ... that after Republicans added work requirements to state Medicaid expansions, state constitutional amendments like one in Missouri were proposed to prevent similar requirements from being implemented? Source: New York Times
  • ALT2: ... that supporters of a 2020 ballot initiative to expand Medicaid in Missouri rarely mentioned Obamacare? Source: NPR
  • Reviewed: 5th nom - QPQ exempt
  • Comment: In order of preference: ALT0 > ALT2 > ALT1. A bit surprised I was able to get this one to DYK.

5x expanded by Username6892 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2020 Missouri Amendment 2; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I'm from Missouri, so I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

- QPQ not required. Article was recently sufficiently expanded, and the sources used look reliable enough for what they are supporting. Spot-checked the sources for ALT0 and ALT2, as well as a few others and noticed no issues with unsupported content or close paraphrasing. Source for ALT1 was paywalled but AGF on that one given no issues on the other checks. Look good to go overall; my preference is for ALT0 as well. Hog Farm _Talk 04:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Results by county

Not sure whether I need to make a results table by county, though official results from the Secretary of State don't seem to have results by county so it may require getting data from every county's board of elections (ex. St. Louis County, result on p. 208). ~UN6892 ^t_c 04:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

More sources and a question

another paywalled source (unrelated to the following)

Should a proposed ballot initiative (see this article) be mentioned here? The article cites this initiative as a contributing factor though I don't know what the bar would be for relevance. ~UN6892 ^t_c 05:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 Missouri Amendment 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Onegreatjoke (talk · contribs) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article to see if it can attain GA status. Comments should (hopefully) start coming tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: If you're up for it, I'm open to any criticism here. Feel free to add any non-GA comments (especially regarding what I wrote on this article's talk page about, not sure how relevant those are). I probably won't take this to FA, but I would like to see the issues which would hinder any future FA push by me. ~UN6892 ^t_c 14:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'm finally done. Putting this on hold to combat the one issue I had with the citation. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, article looks good so approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Prose

• "The initiative was on the August 4, 2020 primary ballot and passed with 53.27% of the vote." Comma after 2020
• " Republican lawmakers added work requirements to Medicaid expansions, which supporters aimed to prevent through proposing state constitutional amendments for future Medicaid expansions." Should probably say "by" instead of "through"

Background

• "that it would be unconstitutional to remove funding from states which did not wish to opt in." Should be a dash between opt and in.

Campaign

• "despite them not being elgible for Medicaid." Should be eligible.

That seems to be all for prose. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

All  Done ~UN6892 ^t_c 00:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• [3] is good
• [7] is good
• [8] is good
• while [9] is good, "No on 2 in August campaigned against the initiative." isn't cited by source 9
• [1] is ggood
• [11] is good
• [14] is good
• [15] is good

@Onegreatjoke: I put source 5 at the end of the sentence. All issues should be addressed. ~UN6892 ^t_c 22:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.