Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2020 Missouri Amendment 2/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2023 [1].

2020 Missouri Amendment 2

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~UN6892 tc 21:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 2010s, referendums to expand Medicaid programs in conservative-leaning American states were met with support from voters. In 2020, a similar referendum was passed in Missouri, requiring the state to expand Medicaid coverage under optional provisions of the Affordable Care Act. While the state legislature initially refused to fund the program, a court decision forced the state to fund it. I initially found this article while looking through articles on similar referendums such as Oklahoma State Question 802 and immediately started finding sources to expand this one. After a GA review by Onegreatjoke and a PR from PCN02WPS, I believe this article is close to meeting the FA criteria. All feedback is welcome. ~UN6892 tc 21:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
It would. It is often carried out by the source reviewer; if so, they are likely to also do some ad hoc comparisons. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]
  • Opponents sued to prevent the measure from being voted on, but courts ruled in favor of it. - "it" may be confusing, "the bill" or similar would work better
  • related Supreme Court decision seemed to prevent its implementation. - seemed? How does a SCOTUS decision seem to prevent a program?
  • Wl Medicaid first time in prose
  • Wl unconstitutional to Constitution of the United States
  • Wl conservative to Conservatism in the United States
  • What is "United for Missouri"? There's no wl and no title- describe it a bit more
  • They appealed the decision - who's "they"?
  • The header says "Campaign" but multiple campaigns are described in it; IMO, "Campaigns" is more fitting
  • Other groups opposing the initiative included Missouri Right to Life, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and Americans for Prosperity.[5] Other conservatives and opponents - other starts two sentences back to back; mix things up
  • Wl illegal immigrants to Illegal immigration to the United States
  • while conservative, rural areas voted against - making this connection between rural living and conservatism gets dangerously close to editorial bias, unless it's explicitly stated in the source
  • It has been cited as an example - replace "it" with "the amendment" or similar
  • Wl Republican and Supreme Court the first time in the prose

Username6892, that's all from me, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Some comments on my changes
  • For "it", I've changed it to "the measure". Not sure if there's too much of that phrase in the lead now.
  • For the "related Supreme Court decision", I've specified that they refused to grant certiorari to cases involving work requirements.
  • The source specifies that United for Missouri is a conservative organization, so I have added that.
  • I have changed "They" to "The organizations".
  • I noticed that the source had one person (Missouri House Budget Chair Cody Smith) saying what I put under "other conservatives and opponents", so I added his name instead.
  • Aligned the "conservative/rural" part with the source I'm citing, which says "conservative voters in rural areas"
  • For "Republican" and "Supreme Court", the lead has Republican Party (United States) and United States Supreme Court linked
Please review my edits if you can. Thanks, ~UN6892 tc 12:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Username6892, for the links, see MOS:REPEATLINK; it should be linked in the lead and in the first time it appears outside of the lead. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: I note that the guideline says "it may be repeated if helpful for readers", as well as some examples where it may be a case. However, I am not too familiar with it and a ton of the links which I might add under that guideline seem superfluous. That was not the case with your suggestions, though I ask that anyone else reviewing this article look over that. ~UN6892 tc 02:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Username6892, my reasoning for thinking that "Republican" and 'Supreme Court" should be linked is to clear up confusion from any readers. The first time Democrats is said outside of the lead is linked, but not these other two exclusively-American terms; even then, because "Supreme Court" doesn't use the full name (Supreme Court of the United States) a reader could get it mixed up with the hundreds of other supreme courts around the world. And, if I read an article on an Amendment in Germany, I would be clueless as to the political parties listed and would benefit from links. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: I had Democrats linked because it was not linked in the lead and clarified which Supreme Court I was referring to. I have added the links as requested though I would like someone else to review them. ~UN6892 tc 15:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of linking, note that there are separate articles illegal immigration to the United States, and undocumented immigrants in the United States. This article mentions the latter, so both the wording and linking should be changed accordingly. Specifically, not all undocumented people arrived in the United States illegally. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the new wording. However, both links are the same. I'm considering linking to undocumented immigrant population of the United States. ~UN6892 tc 01:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Would undocumented immigrant population of the United States be a better link than illegal immigration to the United States? I think the former would work better if they were coming from other states while the latter would work better if they are coming from out of the country, though opponents did not make clear what they were referring to so I am not sure. ~UN6892 tc 09:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more plausible that they would be coming from other states, but either way you know more than I do about the subject. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS - source review and spot check

[edit]

Happy to take another look after my PR. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Have you taken another look? ~UN6892 tc 09:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping - sorry this has taken so long. I'm having a hard time finding complaints with the prose so I'll do a source review. Comments to come shortly. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All FN numbers are from this version.

  • FN 2: Vote totals/results: verified.
  • FN 6: "After a petition gained 346,000 signatures, Governor Mike Parson scheduled the initiative to appear on the August primary ballot." - source says "about 346,000 signatures", which is close enough for me, verified. Might be useful to say that it was originally scheduled for the general ballot in November and moved up as a result of the petition.
  • FN 8: initiative text - verified. Might be helpful to link to the PDF so readers don't have to search through or ctrl-F on the SoS page.
  • "The initiative was campaigned for by YES on 2, which was supported by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, the Missouri Hospital Association, the NAACP, the AARP, the AFL-CIO, and Catholic Charities of St. Louis, among others." -- verified. List of organizations is presented very similarly compared to the source but all are proper nouns so not much can be done there
  • FN 6: "Supporters said most hospital closures were in states which did not opt into the Medicaid expansion." -- verified
  • FN 9: "The initiative was opposed by Republican politicians such as Governor Mike Parson, who said that the state could not afford its share of the Medicaid expansion's cost." -- verified
  • FN 5: "Prior to the vote, No on 2 in August mailed campaign material suggesting undocumented immigrants would come to Missouri looking for Medicaid coverage, despite them not being eligible for Medicaid." -- verified
  • In the last paragraph of "Campaigns", what does FN 6 cover that FN 9 doesn't? From what I can see FN 9 could cover that whole paragraph.
  • "The measure was approved with just over 53% of the vote" -- this seems petty, I'm sure -- but "just" could be construed as OR or as some form of commentary, recommend saying "over 53%" or simplifying in some other way. The second sentence covered by FN 5 there is verified, and I won't hold up the review because of this.
  • FN 9: "The amendment has been cited as an example of the popularity of expanding Medicaid, occurring weeks following the success of a similar ballot initiative in Oklahoma." -- verified
  • "The year following the measure's passage, lawmakers in the House Budget Committee voted against funding the expansion. Following the budget's passage, Governor Parson announced the state would be unable to expand its Medicaid program before the July 1 deadline." -- verified using FN 10, 11, 12
  • FN 14: "Enrollment in the Medicaid expansion began in October 2021, with Missouri becoming the 38th state to opt-in." -- verified
  • FN 15: "Implementation was slow, with only 7% of newly-eligible Missourians enrolling in the expansion's first month, compared to about 50% in Idaho and Montana. The state's outreach efforts regarding the expansion had been much slower than in other states such as Oklahoma." -- verified
  • "The following year, Republican lawmakers proposed requiring that 60% of voters approve of any future state constitutional amendment to make it more difficult for them to pass." -- verified.

Overall, spot checks look good to me. The only thing I'd bring your attention to is being consistent with linking within references: some FN 2, 3, 4, etc., have the website/publisher linked but some do not. Recommend linking Missouri Secretary of State (FN 1, 8), NPR (FN 4), and U.S. News & World Report (15). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: I have implemented all of your suggestions. Regarding FN 6 and FN 9, I initially thought one did not cover Governor Parson's reasoning, though a rereading shows that I missed it in FN 9. Thus, I have removed FN 6 from that paragraph. ~UN6892 tc 12:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Along with my prose comments at the PR, I'm happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PCN02WPS, nudge :-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry that this has taken so long, school and traveling have prevented me from spending a bunch of time on Wikipedia. I'll do my best to have this done by the end of the weekend. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild (thanks for yet another reminder) - took another look over the sourcing and am happy to clarify that the spot check and source review are a pass; separately, my intent was to support the nomination as a whole based on this and my prose comments at the article's PR, but if that is not appropriate without prose comments here as well I can strike that statement. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PCN02WPS, appreciated. And you supportive comment will be taken into account, although with a low weighting. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

After reading the lead a couple of times I'm a bit confused about sequence. I think this is what is being said:

  • The ballot was to expand Medicaid under ACA in Missouri. It passed.
  • Other Republican states had previously expanded Medicaid similarly via ballot measures, and in those states (all or some?) Republican lawmakers added work requirements to Medicaid (including all Medicaid recipients? Even those who qualified before the expansion?)
  • Supporters of Medicaid expansion in those other states then proposed constitutional amendments to eliminate the work requirements. "Future Medicaid expansions" presumably refers to the other states where the expansion had not yet taken place and where these constitutional amendments to eliminate work requirements were proposed to pre-empt the possibility that Republicans would try to pass laws to add them.
  • Opponents sued to prevent the measure being voted on -- I think "measure" has to refer to 2020 Missouri Amendment 2, not the pre-emptive constitional amendments just mentioned.
  • Implementation was delayed by lack of funding but implemented starting in 2021.
  • Republicans tried to roll back the amendment by another constitutional amendment but failed.

Is that an accurate summary? I don't want to comment further at the moment in case I've misunderstood the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username6892, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems correct. I should clarify the wording of the lead under your second point but have not thought of good wording as of yet. ~UN6892 tc 03:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming my reading of the lead -- I wanted to check because I think it needs some copyediting and clarification, but I didn't want to post comments if I'd misinterpreted it. I think the sequence is confusing. We start with a definition of the subject of the article, then talk about similar measures in other states, without saying whether these were before or after the Missouri amendment (or both). The work requirements issue is mentioned and the counter-plan by supporters, which involved more ballot measures. The next sentence says "the measure", which is confusing since we've just mentioned ballot measures but this refers to the subject of the article again. Then we go back to the work requirements issue, but this time just for Missouri.

Sequencing also seems to me to be a problem in the background section.

  • The section starts by saying the ACA's requirement to expand Medicaid coverage was removed in Sebelius, without first saying a goal of the ACA was to expand Medicaid coverage and that the requirement to do so to continue to receive existing federal funding was because of expected opposition in Republican controlled states. I think that's worth saying because it sets the stage for the fight over whether to expand the coverage.
  • Then I think FN 4's map could be used to give a count of those states that did not voluntarily expand coverage -- eighteen of them. Currently we mention three, which isn't wrong, but the real number is worth telling the reader.
  • I would suggest mentioning the Fairness Project's support of the ballot initiative in Maine in 2017 as well as making it clear that the three states you list for 2018 are the full list -- currently it says "such as", as if there were others that year.
  • The sentence starting "After a petition" doesn't say that this was for the expansion of Medicaid, nor even that it was a Missouri petition -- the previous sentence talks about constitutional amendments in other states, so we need to give the reader the context more precisely.
  • "stating the initiative itself does not fund anything": I don't follow this. Opponents argued that the constitutional requirement was that the initiative should cite a funding source. If initiatives don't fund anything, then the constitutional requirement is meaningless -- presumably the intent is that initiatives force the legislature to fund things?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike Christie. I'll try to address these as soon as I can, though I have a rather tight schedule this week so it might take a while. ~UN6892 tc 01:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I'll keep an eye on this page and on the article this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Username6892, is there an update on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild. Apologies for my lack of output lately, I've been rather busy. I think I have some time carved out on Sunday though. I'll go through it then. ~UN6892 tc 02:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good. Be aware that as Sunday will be 20 days since your last edit here you are straining the boundaries of "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly." Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have attempted to address most of the points you brought up. The lead has been reworded and all mentions of "ballot measure" or "measure" have been replaced with "ballot initiative" or "initiative" except for the first link. I'll replace that one with initiative if that is preferable. In the Background section, I am not sure whether the justification for Medicaid expansion being a part of the ACA is relevant enough to be in the article. I have made a few clarifications to address the rest of your points regarding the background section. ~UN6892 tc 17:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username6892, sorry about the slow reply. I've made an edit that I think clarifies the remaining ponits I was confused about in the "Background" section. Can you check to see if the new wording is accurate and supported by the sources? Please feel free to revert any or all of the edits if you disagree. It seemed simply to make the changes and let you review than propose them here. Once you've looked at those I'll take another read through.

One other question: "As of May 2023, no similar amendment has passed in the Missouri Senate." Does this mean that the previous sentence referred to a bill that passed Missouri's lower house? Or was it just a proposed bill that didn't pass either house? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, Regarding your edit, I do not think any particular source connected the court case and the 19 states, and I don't think WP:SKYBLUE applies there, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Regarding your latter question, it was a bill that passed the lower house, though the Senate changed it by lowering the threshold to 57%. I have reworded that section to hopefully make what I meant clearer. ~UN6892 tc 03:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I've removed that part of my edit. Your clarification looks good too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Medicaid expansion supporters in other states which had not expanded Medicaid began supporting constitutional amendment proposals to prevent similar restrictions from being implemented." I reread the cited NY Times article, and as far as I can tell the constitutional amendments that were supported in other states were to expand Medicaid; the point of planning to do it by constitutional amendment was that the implementation could not then be modified by the legislature. The source has "Such post-ballot resistance prompted the Fairness Project to revise its strategy for its 2020 Medicaid campaign in Oklahoma. The ballot asked voters to approve a constitutional amendment, which could be altered only by another statewide referendum. The referendum passed in June. The Fairness Project employed the same method in Missouri." This is not completely unambiguous but I can't see another way to read it, and looking at the way the Maine initiative was wording I think it's clear. I've reworded the relevant part of the article to try to clarify; does that look OK? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: It looks good. ~UN6892 tc 18:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One last question.

  • "After the United States Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to other cases involving state healthcare programs with a work requirement, which would effectively prevent one from taking effect, Republicans gave up on the proposed amendment." I read the cited source, and also found this (which appears to be a reliable source despite being a blog, as Cuello is a law professor) and this (linked by Cuello). I see that the Supreme Court's refusal to review the case meant that earlier decisions that work requirements were unlawful would stand. What I don't see clearly explained is what those lawsuits were -- according to Cuello, the Trump administration had approved the work requirements, so presumably somebody else sued to overturn that approval. I think we need a sentence saying how that lawsuit interacted with state work requirements. E.g., if we can source it, something like this would do: "State legislatures in Arkansas and New Hampshire added work requirements to their Medicaid programs in 20??, and these requirements were approved by the Trump adminstration. The Biden administration sued to prevent these requirements from taking effect, and federal courts ruled that the approvals were invalid and that no such work requirements could be added. In April 2022, after the United States Supreme Court refused to review these decisions, Republicans gave up on the proposed amendment." A bit more sourcing than the links I gave would be needed for this so I don't know if this can be done, but I think this would be clearer than what is there now.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike Christie, I'll get to this one tonight. I have an exam today so I don't have much time to look over it right now. ~UN6892 tc 14:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these sources for tonight. Will try to implement tomorrow. [2][3][4]. ~UN6892 tc 02:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've added all the info there, though please review my wording. I am unsure of the relevance of the time of implementation (the years, not that they were approved by the Trump administration). All other info is sourced to the third source above, however I have little experience with Industry Dive publications. I believe they are reliable ([5] has a link to request corrections and they differentiate press releases from their own news) but would prefer a second opinion. ~UN6892 tc 12:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and thanks for your patience with my slow review. The source looks reliable to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
@Nikkimaria: I'm not a regular at FAC but as the creator of this image I'm curious if there's an issue here? The colors for the image were intentionally chosen to be accessible; this is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors § Proposal support levels. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is accessible for the most common colour-blindness types, red-green. But if you have a look at the map in no colour, it is still very difficult to visually distinguish between equivalent levels of yes and no. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a way to achieve that level of accessibility while maintaining the typical style of referendum support/opposition maps. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elli, you need to ping Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, haven't done FAC much so not aware of the conventions here (also not intending to get in the middle of someone else's nomination). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem Elli. It's a fair comment and it's not getting in the way. And Nikkimaria does a lot of image reviews and I suspect rarely bookmarks them, not something I would expect you to know. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to address the distinguishability problem using patterning for yes vs no. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Elli, I'm not too sure what the best colours would be for the image. My thought at the moment is to make the "no" colours darker than the "yes" colours. I think that would involve darkening the existing "no" brown and lightening the existing "yes" blue, or doing some sort of spectrum where the median colour is closest to 50-50. Not sure how that would work for dark brown -> light blue. I have thought about doing Black -> white, though it feels a bit too unconventional. That's probably a last resort for if nothing works. ~UN6892 tc 17:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Nikkimaria here that to make the maps accessible for people who cannot see color, patterning would be a good way to go. Alternatively you could do a color scheme of entirely one color (over the whole range), but I'd prefer patterning to keep the color scheme consistent with other election maps (and keep the map more immediately clear to most of our readers who can see color). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • "After a petition to put a Medicaid expansion initiative on the ballot in Missouri gained 346,000 signatures," — Perhaps, "gained around 346,000 signatures"
  • "Republican politicians such as Governor Mike Parson" — We have already described in the article than Parson's first name is "Mike" and he and he is a "governor". I'll suggest not repeating it again.
  • "Parson said he scheduled it in August to allow the" — Is there some way to rephrase it in a better way? "Parson replied that ..."? "Parson, however, asserted that ..."?
  • We have both "NPR" and "National Public Radio" in the sources. One is italicized while the other is not.

That is, perhaps, all there is to say! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username6892: Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got to most of these already but was stuck on the 2nd one over my memory of a comment about each section standing on its own. However, I can't find a similar comment here, in the PR, or the GAN so I think I misremembered. I think just saying "Parson" isn't a good enough disambiguation, though I agree that saying the first name is a bit much so I've removed it. Kavyansh.Singh, is the current version satisfactory? ~UN6892 tc 14:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2020_Missouri_Amendment_2/archive1&oldid=1183065559"