Template:Did you know nominations/California Senate Bill 827

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

California Senate Bill 827 edit

(

)

... that California's Senate Bill 827 would have affected nearly half of Los Angeles's single-family homes? Source: Los Angeles Times
- ALT1:... that California's Senate Bill 827 would have affected 96 percent of land in San Francisco? Source: SF Weekly

Reviewed: Home and Away: All or Nothing

Created by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 06:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC).

Review: The article was, in fact, created ex novo on April 18. It contains about 2100 characters of readable prose, which is good. What's not good, though, is that this article has been marked as a stub, which unfortunately calls for temporary rejection. I would personally rate it as Start-class, and since the creator / nominator SounderBruce added the stub template himself, I'm guessing that there's some sort of misunderstanding here. But this can be easily fixed. Moving on... the article is well-cited, with each sentence in the body of the article supported by one or more inline citations, which are all well-formatted and lead to reliable news sources on the bill in question. Earwig gives it a very low likelihood of copyvio. (As an aside, regarding the structure of the article, I was a little confused with how they flowed into each other... the history section, which comes first, concludes with the bill's rejection, but then flips back in time to "Proposal" and then "Political debate". I would suggest, for the sake of readability and flow, making "History" the last section of the article, though I could understand objections to that argument.) Both hooks are good, and are cited explicitly in the article. I checked out the sources and the facts are accurately reported. I'd personally vote for the second hook since the 96-percent figure is an impressive one. In short: remove the stub template, rate it as Start-class on the Talk page, add your QPQ review, and I think it's good to go. — AJDS ^talk 07:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alekjds: Added the QPQ above, removed the stub tag, and moved the history section to the bottom. I had planned for the article to be much longer, but couldn't find suitable clarification in my sources. Sounder Bruce 05:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Excellent. After those adjustments, I'm happy to approve it. Well done. — AJDS ^talk 18:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)