The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
So link to to the Secretary of State's results for those interested in those details. We are under no directive to present every possible statistic about an election. While I think the Brexit results here are also more detailed than we need on Wikipedia, there has undoubtedly been significant analysis of the geographic breakdown of how localities and parliamentary constituencies voted on that: the same is not true for this proposition, whose result isn't in doubt. Reywas92Talk14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 article needs significant reorganizing, trimming, and source work before it can meet the good article criteria. I'm closing the review so that cleanup can take place. It can be renominated at any time once the nominator believes the issues have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all of the sources are primary sources, either for government documents/activities, for coverage of events, or for the opinions of the authors. GA doesn't have a specific requirement for secondary sources, but it can bring major problems to the article. The first is that with these sources, you can only make basic statements of fact that don't require any interpretation or prior knowledge of the subject. The second problem is that it means there's essentially no curation of sources or application of due weight, because there are no sources that provide these things, effectively making this an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. I wrote more about this below under criterion 3. The third problem, an effect of these first two, is that eventually we are going to have to present the information in some way, and if it's us analyzing the primary sources ourselves, then it's original research. WP:PRIMARY describes where primary sources should and shouldn't be used.
Information from opinion sources, or from advocacy and partisan organizations, should be attributed generously:
48: Basic fact, probably not an issue.
64–66: Attributed.
75: Basic fact.
106–109: Used to support that these sources exist.
110: PRNewswire is normally unreliable, but in this case it provides attributed opinion.
122–129: Used to verify opinions.
130–131: It's generally used to describe who holds what opinions, but the section depends very heavily on this source.
132–133, 135–136: Used to verify opinions.
137: Used to verify opinion.
150–203: All used to verify opinion.
233: Used for attributed opinion.
242: Attributed opinion.
249: Attributed poll from an advocacy group.
254: Used to describe facts, but getting beyond basic fact.
Broad in its coverage
The article covers all of the main aspects, but it fails to do so without going out of scope or into excessive detail. There are nearly a hundred sources in this article that are specifically used to explain the opinion of one specific person or group. Articles like this should generally have a brief summary of the positions and then maybe a few examples of prominent figures, organizations, or demographic groups who are regularly described in the sources as relevant to this issue.
Looking at the sections where this is most apparent:
California abortion law – This section is a five paragraph description of the history of California's abortion law from 1850 to 2022. The entire concept of abortion law in California is beyond the scope of this article, and it should only have the minimum necessary for readers to understand where the law was when this vote took place.
Discussion on effects – This looks like a detailed blow by blow account of everything that was published about what effects might be relevant. It's basically the journalism equivalent of raw data. This should have been analyzed by secondary sources (books, journals, retrospective media analysis) so they could determine what was relevant, and then the Wikipedia article would summarize said secondary sources.
Positions – This is where the problem is most significant. It feels like this section goes through the opinion of every person who ever commented publicly on this proposition. Same with the previous point, Wikipedia articles shouldn't indiscriminately collect information.
Neutral
Stable
Illustrated
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.
Well-written
Verifiable with no original research