Talk:Eugene Local Measure 51

Untitled

I thought the introduction section could use more detail on what Measure 51 is and the difference between measure 51 and no 18080. I thought the article's structure was clear but the categories kind of all blended together with their information. I thought the content covered a lot within the topic but was confusing at times. I am still not really sure hat ended up passing or what was denied. I think a results section specifically saying what happened would be really helpful. (Anjulenabagga (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)).

Agreed. Also, the text could use some re-working too. Some parts are overly wordy (for example, "non-majority sexual behavior"). -- Sandbergja (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anjulenabagga: If you want, I can do a quick search for period press coverage of this on Newspapers.com, do their crop function which makes the articles available to non-members, and post the links here. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Winter 2021 QS 262 Review

The article's introduction was short and concise but gives good detail of what the article entails. It was clear and easy to understand which is good. The structure of the article was clear and was arranged by themes in chronological order. I liked the use of the chart to show the voting results. Could've maybe used a subheading for the national attention the measure brought. The content of the article covered many aspects about the topic such as the background, the results, and the national attention the measure brought. The article didn't seem biased towards any side or have language that would indicate so. There was no use of value statements such as "the best" or "the most important". I liked the use of many quotations from reliable sources. There were no unnamed sources or statements like "some people say" which is really good. Great article overall. Delgaroo99 (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

W21 QS 262 Review

I thought the lead section of the article was Clear and easy to understand as well as detailed enough to provide a good outline of what I read. The article structure was appropriate as well, I thought it was good that you first provided some background on the ordinance that prompted Measure 51 and, I feel as if I now know quite a bit about this subject. The content covered many topics and gave equal weight to each part of the story, the citations were good and reliable, and I also thought the quotes you included provided a lot of extra context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbaaOSU2755 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Queer Studies 262 Review

I found the lead section of the article to be concise and clear with links to other articles that may be helpful for readers who didn't understand some of the terminology used. The lead isn't confusing or fragmented in an awkward way. The article's structure was well designed and flowed in a chronological manner which made comprehension easy. Each major section of the article was well-explained and contained relevant information from reliable sources. Overall, this article is very well written and complete. The one editing suggestion I have is in the Measure 51 section where it says "A plan for repeal for Ordinance no.18080 began only 14 hours after it was passed at the November 28, 1997, City Council meeting". Is the 1997 a mistake since the rest of the years mentioned in the article are 1977-1978? Great job on this article, I learned something new and enjoyed how it was written! Nylandvj (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)