# Talk:2024 New York Proposal 1

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

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)

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)

Probably not, to be consistent with the other similar referendum articles  CGP05 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
Done. The reframing wasn't quite as pervasive as I thought on first glance. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

@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)

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

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

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)
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)