A fact from Measure VY appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Culver City's Measure VY would have allowed 16-year-olds to vote, but it fell short by 16 votes out of over 16,000?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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 Bruxton (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: somehow, my content skills have returned? please do a notability sweep of the article :) i'm a bit concerned that it gets draftified or deleted.
Overall: New enough (12 Dec) and long enough (RPS 4574), notability looks fine to me. Sourcing is good and Earwig looks good. Neutrality is good, maybe with exception of the last sentence or two of "Against", about canvassing with his mom (might read to some like a "gotcha" sort of line, but sentence after backs it up in a way). Happy to give a tick. (Not as important, but I'd recommend linking "Culver City" in the hook for unfamiliar readers.) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, PCN02WPS! :) For the line in "against", are you reading it as in favour of or deriding Gourley? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely that this ballot measure will remain at C-class indefinitely, as I've exhausted the available sourcing and this is a one-time event. But, should historical sources choose to revisit this unsuccessful local initiative, a thorough investigation of the details of the campaign could take this to GA status. Population- and area-based demographics on campaigning and results would be particularly helpful. The article provides a good overview, but doesn't address the main aspects of the topic in enough detail to meet my GA nomination standards. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New enough (12 Dec) and long enough (RPS 4574), notability looks fine to me. Sourcing is good and Earwig looks good. Neutrality is good, maybe with exception of the last sentence or two of "Against", about canvassing with his mom (might read to some like a "gotcha" sort of line, but sentence after backs it up in a way). Happy to give a tick. (Not as important, but I'd recommend linking "Culver City" in the hook for unfamiliar readers.) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)