Talk:2022 California Proposition 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2022 California Proposition 1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2022 California Proposition 1. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2022 California Proposition 1 at the Reference desk.

2022 California Proposition 1 was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 26, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Abortion Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's 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

Feminism Mid‑importance

	Feminism portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

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

Law Low‑importance

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

Politics Low‑importance

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

Women's Health Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for 2022 California Proposition 1 (43 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	5,237	5,237
Background	17	32,508
Constitutional amendment procedure	784	784
California abortion law	16,826	16,826
Previous propositions	3,886	3,886
Impetus for new proposition	10,995	10,995
Legislative process	27	12,930
Proposed constitutional changes	1,098	1,098
Senate	7,352	7,352
Assembly	4,453	4,453
Campaign	16	60,377
Designation and legislative analysis	2,933	2,933
Arguments and rebuttals	3,689	3,689
Discussion on effects	3,563	28,660
Campaign strategy	4,396	4,396
Viability	7,367	7,367
Voter turnout	8,456	8,456
Federal precedence	4,878	4,878
Spending	11,353	11,353
Media	9,643	9,643
Protests	4,083	4,083
Positions	17	66,546
Political parties	1,054	1,054
Support	44,110	44,110
Opposition	16,426	16,426
Neutral or no position	4,939	4,939
Opinion polling	23	10,246
Estimates	871	871
Preferences	9,352	9,352
Voting	7,044	7,044
Results	4,320	34,594
Statewide	905	905
By county	20,630	29,369
By congressional district	8,739	8,739
Aftermath	17	25,453
Reactions	7,257	7,257
National effect	6,431	6,431
Analysis	9,170	9,170
Subsequent legislation	2,578	2,578
See also	1,063	1,063
Notes	26	26
References	30	30
External links	1,522	1,522
Total	257,576	257,576

Results tables

@Reywas92: The tables you removed do not go against WP:NOTSTATS, nor are they arbitrary. A search into past California election results compiled by the Secretary of State shows proposition results in all the ways mentioned in those tables. These tables could have remained in a separate article, with previous examples being Results of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and Results of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum by constituency, but you took it upon yourself to merge the two and ditch the other tables and say it's excessive when there had previously been a separate article for the results. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Reywas92^Talk 14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Results

Can someone edit the table to note that these are not the final numbers? LucasGK123 (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 08:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2023 (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 review is transcluded from Talk:2022 California Proposition 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 18:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get this reviewed over the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Well-written

Verifiable with no original research

Numbering based on the sources as of this revision.

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.