Jump to content

Talk:Red-boxing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk03:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that red-boxing by American politicians to coordinate with Super PACs was called the “primary mechanism for corruption of federal campaigns in 2022” by the Campaign Legal Center? Source: “Adav Noti, the legal director of the watchdog group the Campaign Legal Center, said that red boxes were erasing the very barriers that were erected to make politicians feel less indebted to their biggest financial benefactors. Federal candidates can legally raise only $2,900 for a primary per donor; super PACs can receive donations of $1 million — or even more. “It’s a joke,” he said. “The coordination of super PACs and candidates is the primary mechanism for corruption of federal campaigns in 2022.”” The New York Times

Created by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 20:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Thriley: The DYK Check tool reads the "Instances of Use" section as a list/table format, and not eligible in the word count. Therefore, the DYK Check says you only have 974 characters (152 words). If you look at WP:DYKCRIT (1.New b) it says, "Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references." I suggest you remove the left-hand side asterisks, and just redo that into prose paragraphs. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll fix this shortly. Sorry for the delay. Thriley (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. The DYK check now confirms you have 1787 characters (282 words) "readable prose size". — Maile (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New enough and now long enough at the time of nomination. Hook is interesting, included in article, and accurate. No textual issues, though I wish there were more references in general. I did find one other article from a week ago on the practice with a candidate in Vermont, which I've added. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]