Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Collaboration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Main Project Page
- Members
- Announcements
- Project category
- Assessment
- Collaboration
- Peer reviews
- Translation
This list is generated automatically every night around 10 PM EST.
view full worklist
Taxation articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Quality | |||||||
FA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
A | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 1 | 1 | |||||
B | 6 | 9 | 10 | 18 | 43 | ||
Start | 8 | 55 | 131 | 230 | 424 | ||
Stub | 1 | 13 | 59 | 247 | 320 | ||
Assessed | 15 | 78 | 203 | 496 | 792 | ||
Unassessed | 4 | 4 | |||||
Total | 15 | 78 | 203 | 496 | 4 | 796 |
The Taxation Collaboration of the Month is a collaborative effort to improve Tax-related articles, in order to help them reach featured-article standards. Each month, an article is chosen by people interested in the topic, and for the next month the chosen article is worked on, under Wikipedia's principle of collaborative editing. This provides a single article for people to concentrate their efforts on collaboratively.
The current Taxation Collaboration of the Month is:
Please read the nomination text and help improve the article to featured article standard.
Contents |
[edit] Selecting the next collaboration
Collaborations are changed around the first day of a month. The selection process involves three steps:
- Nomination: New nominations can be made at any time and should be added at the end of the Candidates for next Month section. Insightful comments may assist others in casting their vote.
- Voting: To vote for an article, add your ~~~~ under the article's support section. Any registered Wikipedian can vote on this page, regardless of their level of knowledge about the subject.
- Selection: The collaboration is selected by approval voting; thus, you may vote for as many candidates as you like, and opposition votes have no bearing. The article with the most support votes is selected as the winner. In case of a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins.
[edit] Preparing the next collaboration
To change to a newly selected article, first close the previous one:
- Remove the article from current collaboration page to reflect the change.
- Remove the {{TaxationCOTM}} from the top of the article.
- Note the selection in the collaboration archive.
- Send the article to the assessment page to check where it falls on the grading scale.
- If appropriate, the article should be referred to Good article candidates or to Featured article candidates.
Now prepare the new article:
- Change to the new selection at the current collaboration by replacing the old article with the new.
- Add the {{TaxationCOTM}} to the top of the new article.
- Remove the new article from the Next collaboration section, and note it on the collaboration archive.
- Change the COTM-nom=yes on the newly nominated article talk page to COTM=yes
- Contact the Wikipedians who voted for the winning article in their talk pages.
[edit] Nominating articles
- First, decide if it is necessary for the article to require a collaboration. Minor grammatical errors and other simple tasks can be done by one person. Be bold!
- Add COTM-nom=yes to {{WikiProject Taxation}} on the top of the article's talk page.
- Add the nominee to the Next collaboration section, and follow the following format:
===[[Article]]=== Reason ~~~~ ;Support # ~~~~ # ~~~~ ;Comments *
[edit] Current collaboration
- Support - On the public finance template and could use some work. Morphh (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Next collaboration
[edit] Personal financial benefits of military service
Military service often incurs favourable taxation benefits for the military personnel. This article needs improvement on the subject as it currently only addresses the taxation benefits of Canadian servicepersons, and even there only to a limited degree. Kurieeto 15:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support
- Kurieeto 15:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Refund anticipation loan
A lopsided article with unsourced negative info and rightfully frustrated COI editors who have been trying to work things out on the talk page. If the content could be reviewed, selected and organized by fresh expert eyes, then it would be easier to source using both mainstream articles and primary sources. The article's talk page reflects the issues and the inaction around it. Flowanda | Talk 05:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support
- Comments