Talk:2024 New York Proposal 1

2024 New York Proposal 1 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 4, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Abortion Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

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

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sourcing

This article makes claims without sources. This is a violation of Wikipedia's terms. Meh130 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This passed

someone might wanna update this as it passed with 61.8% of the vote 125.236.174.47 (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to New York Equal Rights Amendment?

Checking to see if it would be controversial to move this to New York Equal Rights Amendment. This wouldn't involve a significant change in the content, but reframe to be about the law (and whatever happens with the law moving forward). @CGP05 and Snowman304: thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, to be consistent with the other similar referendum articles CGP05 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO consistently is not a goal in itself if there are other reasons. Regardless, it looks like someone has reframed this page to be about an amendment, and not a proposal. Either the previous framing should be restored (a proposal to amend) or the title should be moved. Thinking about it more, I think it does make sense to keep it about the proposal for now, until/unless a bunch of sources emerge about the effect of the amendment itself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The reframing wasn't quite as pervasive as I thought on first glance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA?

Thinking about nominating this over at GAN. Any suggestions/thoughts before I do? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map

@ZackCarns: Thanks for the map! Could you confirm it's based on finalized election results? I noticed we still had some numbers from preliminary/projected sources until recently. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the map based on what the NYT has it at. ZackCarns (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 New York Proposal 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) 17:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 18:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I made some alterations to improve the article such as removing unnecessary adjectives.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
All of the sources are valid and properly sourced. No original research or copyright violations found. I went through a couple dozen references for this. I thoroughly checked the election results sources of [1] when I was fixing the percentage results. For the content section I checked 2 to make sure that the text of the proposition was accurately copied and 3 so that the effects were accurately stated. For the remainder of the article I checked every five references starting with reference 11. Reference 11 accurately reflects Cuomo's actions, 16 accurately reflects the state legislative vote, 21, 26 reflects critiques of the new language, 31 (which I used to make some edits to the page) reflects campaign finance in the election, 36 is the results of a poll and there are no errors between the conversion, and 46 shows the NYT's coverage of the proposition winning in areas Trump won.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers the text of the amendment, what it does, the history of putting it onto the ballot, the campaign, and results.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No neutrality problems.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Only two edits in March and none in February.
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):
The county results are included and I do not believe that any other images are necessary for the article.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
@Rhododendrites: Pretty good and interesting article. Nice work. Jon698 (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rhododendrites: I will start my review of this page in a timely manner. It looks interesting. Jon698 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]