A fact from 2016 Massachusetts Question 3 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 June 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal 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.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that before voters overwhelmingly approved Question 3, advocates had failed to convince Massachusetts legislators to limit farm animal confinement for a decade? "The Massachusetts legislature has a May 3 deadline to either approve or reject the initiative—the latter is the likeliest course, given animal welfare advocates have attempted to pass similar farming provisions through the capitol for a decade"—Zach Colman, The Atlantic, 2016-04-16 For "overwhelmingly", see WaPo, Wicked Local Concord, etc.
ALT1:... that Massachusetts's Question 3 was the first U.S. ballot measure to ban the sale of eggs or pork from intensively confined animals? "Massachusetts voters Tuesday passed a groundbreaking ballot question that will mandate all pork, veal, and eggs farmed and sold in Massachusetts come from pigs, calves, and laying hens not confined to ultratight quarters. While voters in other states have banned certain farming practices through referenda, no ballot measure has outlawed the sale of products from animals raised in a particular way." Joshua Miller, Boston Globe, 2016-11-08
ALT2:... that the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed Question 3 on the ballot because it had the unifying purpose of "preventing farm animals from being caged in overly cramped conditions"? "The supreme judicial court found 'the farm provision and the sales provision share a common purpose of preventing farm animals from being caged in overly cramped conditions,' and held the initiative contained subjects that are related or are mutually dependent"—Sean Murphy, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 2017
Hi, I came by to promote this. While you've listed the Boston Globe source on this nomination page, I don't see this given as the inline cite for the hook fact. I'm also having trouble locating the hook fact about it being the first U.S. ballot measure to ban the sale of eggs or pork from intensively confined animals. Could you point it out to me? I've also added a "citation needed" tag for the explanatory text accompanying the ballot measure. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, I did quite a bit of digging while reviewing this article. The hook appears and is cited in the section "Referendum results" with the sentence "Question 3 was the first ballot measure to ban the sale of animal products raised under certain conditions,[10]." The cite is the one noted above. Other cites prove that there were legislative restrictions, but this was the first ballot measure to do it. The specificity of eggs and pork come from the language of the ballot itself. Found5dollar (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also the explanatory text is cited, but an extra line up with "The text of the ballot question was as follows:". I have placed the same cite where you have added a "citation needed". Found5dollar (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your sleuthing, Found5dollar. But we cannot conflate one sentence that says the first ballot measure to ban the sale of animal products raised under certain conditions with another sentence that lists the actual products. We need the eggs or pork to be part of the first ballot measure to ban the sale of ... sentence. If it's in the source (which I can't view), then it should be added to the sentence in the article. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, It is in the source, pretty plainly. The quote in the source is "Massachusetts voters Tuesday passed a groundbreaking ballot question that will mandate all pork, veal, and eggs farmed and sold in Massachusetts come from pigs, calves, and laying hens not confined to ultratight quarters. While voters in other states have banned certain farming practices through referenda, no ballot measure has outlawed the sale of products from animals raised in a particular way." I will leave it to the nominator, FourViolas, to update the sentence if you truly feel that is not cited well enough or isn't stated plainly enough in the article. I feel it is.Found5dollar (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Found5dollar: Please read WP:DYK#Cited hook 3a: The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. We cannot go searching up references to find the hook fact; it must be plainly stated in the article, with a citation. Yoninah (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK eligibility criteria do actually allow multiple facts from the article to be combined: they require only that Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source (my emphasis). The hook contains two facts: that Q3 was the first ballot measure to ban the sale of certain animal products, and that two animal products affected were eggs and pork. As Found5dollar points out, Miller specifies the products, such that the hook is not WP:SYNTH, and the article also contains abundant citations enumerating the products affected, for example at the end of the first paragraph of §Text.
In the article sentence in question, it would be inappropriate to specify the animal products affected, because the notable fact that the source is pointing out is that this was the first time voters banned the sale of any animal products based on welfare condition. However, "eggs and pork" is more hooky than "certain animal products", and the source and article both leave no possible doubt that these are among the products affected. FourViolas (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this hook is of a definite fact that is mentioned and cited multiple times throughout the article, with both the Boston Globe source and the text of the question being the main sources. That is why I gave it a check mark, which I stand by. You obviously disagree with my conclusion. I'll leave it to the nominator to make any additional changes you see necessary as we do not see eye to eye on this one.Found5dollar (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
great job with the article! Found5dollar (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this. While you've listed the Boston Globe source on this nomination page, I don't see this given as the inline cite for the hook fact. I'm also having trouble locating the hook fact about it being 
Thanks. Restoring tick per Found5dollar's review. Yoninah (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)