Talk:2010 Oklahoma State Question 755/GA2

Lead

• The lead is pretty short for an article of this length, and does not summarize a lot of points in the body. The majority of § Aftermath, for example, is unrepresented here.
• Please also take particular care to write without presupposing a reader's background knowledge or awareness of technical (or uncommon) terms. What's Sharia law? What does it mean for a ballot measure to be challenged in a higher court?
• The lead sentence should not assume the reader knows what Oklahoma is. I might also rephrase so the 2010 Oklahoma elections link comes later in the paragraph.
• "Oklahoma state constitution" Title case seems like the norm here. If you're making this change, look for it in the body as well.
• We can be a little more specific than "referendum" in the short description.
• [[First Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]] → [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] (as in the body)
  • I've expanded the lead to address these concerns.

Background

• I would mention the year that 9/11 took place for context.
  • Done.
• Link Islamophobia or Islamophobia in the United States.
  • Done.
• Link Sharia law.
  • Done.
• Link Quran.
  • Done.
• "can exist as a source of inspiration" is a little vague. I would rephrase to be closer to how the source puts it.
  • I've rephrased this a bit.
• "a small share of the state's population" technically fails verification. I would find another source or deemphasize it to "only 15,000 Muslims" as in the source.
  • imo this is a reasonable interpretation of the source (maybe with a bit of SKYISBLUE).

    To clarify, my concern is more that this comment is unnecessarily editorializing the figure rather that proportion actually being true. If another source frames the information in that way, that would justify Wikipedia following suit, but if not, it should just be stated as neutrally as possible. —TS

    @TechnoSquirrel69: I've found some more sources here and rewritten the sentence. Let me know if that works. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

    That looks good to me! Thanks for including the detail about the variation in estimates; that seems relevant. —TS

• There are a lot of consecutive ^[1]:698s which could probably be consolidated.
  • I think these are fine. It may look a bit cluttered, but I don't see an obvious way to consolidate them without losing information.
• Spell out and link Oklahoma House of Representatives on its first use.
  • Done.
• There are a lot of withs in this last paragraph. Can we rephrase a few of them for flow?
  • I've rephrased one. I think the rest would just make things a bit clunkier.
• house → House
  • Done.
• Maybe this is my lack of legal knowledge showing, but are the number of absences in the votes significant enough to include here?
  • I think it's important context to explain why the vote totals would be different (and something I'd want to know, if it wasn't included).

Contents

• Link United States Code.
  • Done.
• Link First impression (law) (or directly to Precedent, I'm not sure if this is an {{R with possibilities}}).
  • Done.
• Koran → [Quran] (up to you, but I'd prefer consistency with the article text)
  • I'd rather keep it as-is.
• Link Muhammad, though you probably don't need to respell the source here.
  • Done.
• Brad Henry officially placed
  • Conflicted on this. I think "officially" carries some meaning here -- he did it via executive proclamation.
• rewritten ballot title (reduce repetition)
  • Done.

Support and opposition

• Is this section header typical for articles of this kind? I'd think something involving the word reception would be more idiosyncratic for Wikipedia.
  • It's somewhat common for election articles, yes. I considered going with something like "Campaign", except organized campaigning was limited and endorsements really were a bulk of it.
• radio ad, which ... America", and → radio ad – which ... America" – and
  • Done.

Polling

• A short sentence to introduce the data would really help contextualize what the table is actually presenting, maybe something along the lines of "Unofficial polls were conducted to assess voter opinion of the ballot measures ...".
  • Done.
• Date(s) → Dates
  • Done.
• What are the cell background colors for? If they have any particular meaning, it's important to remember that screen readers will not pick up on that information.
  • Indicating which side is winning. It's also info that's visible from looking at the data itself, so I don't think it needs to be spelled out more clearly for screen readers (or at least I'm unsure on how that would be done).
• Since only "LV" is being used here, maybe you can get rid of the key and use {{abbr}}s instead. That being said, it might be worth elaborating on what "likely voters" means in this context.
  • I've used an {{abbrlink}} for the first one, and {{abbr}} for the rest.

Results

• Replace "mailers" with something more specific; from what I can see the term is used both for the people dealing with mail and the mail advertisements themselves.
  • Done.
• 2010 Oklahoma State Question 751 (you can pipe it so the correct title is red-linked)
  • Done.

Aftermath

• Even though the opening sentence is verified by text further down, I would recommend citations for it.
• Why "Oklahoma Board of Elections" and then "Oklahoma State Election Board" a little later (and "Board of Elections" further down)? They should probably be made consistent, and the introduction should come on the first mention.
  • I've clarified a bit.
• Link Preliminary injunction.
  • Done.
• Maybe link Public interest.
  • Don't think this exactly works; our article is on a slightly different concept.
• "a preliminary injunction. That preliminary injunction" Rephrase to reduce repetition.
  • I don't like merging these sentences, but I've rephrased.
• Introduce the Lemon test (excellent name, by the way) as "a test from Lemon v. Kurtzman", or similar.
  • I've done this in the footnote.
• I might also mention the year of the case, for this and Larson v. Valente below.
  • Done.
• I appreciate that the footnote goes into more detail about the test, but I would at least mention that it has three prongs in the body so the following sentence is contextualized better.
  • Done (and reworded the footnote accordingly).
• Link Free Exercise Clause.
  • Done.
• The sentence revisiting the arguments can be condensed; I would just mention that the Tenth Circuit agreed with all the arguments except one.
• Establishment Clause. In that Establishment Clause
  • Done.
• This was because the court
  • Done.
• The sentence beginning "Given that the Board ..." feels like it's running on; I would split it into two.
  • Done.
• Is "Particularly, ..." grammatical at the beginning of a sentence? "In particular, ..." sounds more familiar to me.
  • Done.
• HB → House Bill (or maybe HouseBlaster? (: )
  • Done.
• I wouldn't phrase "ignored in the Senate" as strong as that, per the source.
  • I've changed it to "did not progress".

References

Citation numbers from this revision.

• I would just put the Awad v. Ziriax citations in <ref>...</ref> tags, since they're not really explanatory footnotes.
• Citation 1 appears to be openly accessible, so I'd recommend linking it. Refine the date, add the issue number.
  • Done.
• Some instances of citations 5, 11, and 23 need page numbers.
  • Done.
• It looks like citation 6's contents were first published in the Edmond Sun before it merged into The Norman Transcript.
  • Fixed.
• Add work titles to citations 20 and 21.
  • Done.
• Citations 22–24 could really use some sprucing up with templates, especially since two of them are actually citations to Tulsa World.
  • Done.
• Citation 30 is also on the Internet, same changes needed as 1.
  • Done.
• Add |url-access=subscription to citation 32. (I couldn't find any archives that bypassed the paywall, but the text appears for just a moment, and thankfully I have the fastest Ctrl+C in the west.)
  • Done.
• Spot-checks completed without issues: 1a–1e, 3a, 4a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 11c, 22, 23, 26a–26b, and 32. I've left any text–source integrity comments in the sections above where they come up.
• Although not required for GA, I would add archive links for online sources that don't have them. This Link Dispenser report should make it easy to identify the ones that need work.

Images

• 2010 Oklahoma State Question 755 results map by county.svg and 2010 HJR 1056 Oklahoma House of Representatives fourth reading vote map.svg are both appropriately captioned and tagged CC0.
• The article as a whole strikes me as a little light on media. Are there opportunities to include additional images or quote boxes or anything? A portrait of Sally Kern could work in § Continued legislative efforts, for example.
  • Good idea. I've added a picture of Kern.

    Looks good to me, captioned and tagged appropriately. —TS

Discussion

Overall, excellent work on this one! This was a very interesting read. Please let me know if you have any questions, Elli. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll get to work shortly. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 apologies for the delay. I've addressed the vast majority of your comments now; would appreciate if you took another look. I'm not 100% happy with the lead, so if you have any better ideas there, I'd appreciate that especially. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, Elli! I'm busy with work off-wiki at the moment, not to mention being bereft of a laptop, so I'll get back to this in a few days, most likely. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Elli: One or two responses above, after which this should be good to go. Thanks for your patience with my response. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we should be good here? Please let me know if there's anything I've missed. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on this nomination, Elli! It's been my pleasure to review, and it's now my pleasure to pass this as a good article. Don't forget about your seven-day window to put this up at Did you know. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)