Template:Did you know nominations/Oregon House Bill 2020

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Oregon House Bill 2020[edit]

(

)

... that Oregon governor Kate Brown dispatched state troopers to search for eleven Republican senators who fled the state because of House Bill 2020? Source: The Oregonian
- ALT1:... that the Oregon State Capitol was shut down due to a threat from an armed militia protesting House Bill 2020? Source: Associated Press

Reviewed: TBD
Comment: The situation isn't resolved yet, so this count may change and there might be new hooks added at a later date.

Created by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 07:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral: - The article is not-neutral only presenting the view point of one side of the issue, and excluding the view point of the other side of the issue in its entirety (as of this review)
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - biased hooks, see comment
Other problems: - It is this reviewer's view that the hooks advocate one side of the issue over the other side of the issue, as such it should not be approved.

QPQ: - Not done

Overall:

Please see WP:DYKNOT:

A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches).

I believe that the author of this article is well intentioned but given the topic is a current political controversy, it shouldn't be approved. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the assessment of this article and entry as promoting a political cause. It's reporting on the contents of the bill and its relation with the walkout (which is covered in its own article) and doesn't really have enough detail at the moment to have a substantial lean in either direction. Sounder Bruce 05:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree. The hooks are entirely factual and one need not commit bothsidesism to be neutral, they do not advocate for anything. The article is well sourced and not promotional, and that is malfeasance to disapprove due to it being a "controversy", this certainly not being in the middle of a campaign. Reywas92^Talk 18:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is in need of an update, as events have proceeded and the Republican senators have returned and are voting again. The original hook's use of "fled" is questionable when considering POV: this was a choice to leave (or fail to show up for work) to prevent quorum from being attained, and they subsequently had to evade the state police after the governor sent the state police after them. (Were any of them apprehended?) Absent an update, the article is not sufficiently complete to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

SounderBruce, I pinged your talk page at the time of my above post, and that post has already been archived without any action. There needs to be action to update the article or a response to the review in the next three days if you wish to continue pursuing this nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I will withdraw this nomination. It's not worth fighting for. Sounder Bruce 03:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)