A fact from Red-boxing appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 July 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that red-boxing by American politicians is used to coordinate with
Super PACs, an activity that the
Campaign Legal Center called the "primary mechanism for corruption of federal campaigns in 2022"?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.
... that red-boxing by American politicians to coordinate with
Super PACs was called the “primary mechanism for corruption of federal campaigns in 2022” by the
Campaign Legal Center? Source: “Adav Noti, the legal director of the watchdog group the Campaign Legal Center, said that red boxes were erasing the very barriers that were erected to make politicians feel less indebted to their biggest financial benefactors. Federal candidates can legally raise only $2,900 for a primary per donor; super PACs can receive donations of $1 million — or even more. “It’s a joke,” he said. “The coordination of super PACs and candidates is the primary mechanism for corruption of federal campaigns in 2022.””
The New York Times
@
Thriley: The DYK Check tool reads the "Instances of Use" section as a list/table format, and not eligible in the word count. Therefore, the DYK Check says you only have 974 characters (152 words). If you look at
WP:DYKCRIT (1.New b) it says, "Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references." I suggest you remove the left-hand side asterisks, and just redo that into prose paragraphs.
— Maile (
talk)
20:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)reply
New enough and now long enough at the time of nomination. Hook is interesting, included in article, and accurate. No textual issues, though I wish there were more references in general. I did find one other article from a week ago on the practice with a candidate in Vermont, which I've added.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
23:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)reply