Talk:Sunlight before signing
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination[edit]
- 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 Evrik talk 05:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- ... that Barack Obama made an election promise to make non-emergency bills freely available online for a five-day public consultation period under Sunlight before signing?
- Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/us/politics/22pledge.html - "During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for five days before he signed it."
- Reviewed:
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.GobsPint (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC).
- Comment: The article is relatively short and needs further development before being highlighted; the topic is an interesting one, but the hook could do with being shorter. Perhaps,
Alt1 ... that Barack Obama promised to make bills freely available online for public consultation under Sunlight before signing? Klbrain (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, numerically it's over the limit, but as written, this article would deserve {{no lead}}, and one should be added.--Launchballer 19:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Lots of good comments but nobody appears to have reviewed. So I guess I will take it on.4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Clearly written and sufficiently referenced. Some of the points show over-citations, such as the end of the lede. This means that readers don't know which reference to turn to find the most substantive pieces of evidence to support the claim. There is also no lede, distinct from sections within the body of the article; the lede is a helpful summary or abstract of a more well-developed article.
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- C-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- C-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- All Websites articles
- All Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles