Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Taxation
General information (edit · changes)
Departments
Templates
Things you can do (edit)
WikiProject Taxation

Collaboration of the Month

FA Drive

GA Drive

Taxation article statistics

This list is generated automatically every night around 10 PM EST.
view full worklist

Taxation
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1 1 3
A 1 1
Good article 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 3 3
Total 15 78 203 496 3 795
Categories
Other WikiProjects

The peer review department of the Taxation WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement. The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality. The process is intended to make marginal and good quality articles to excellent, encyclopedic ones.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Taxation WikiProject. Please consider reviewing someone else's article too, if you request yours :-)


Contents

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WikiProject Taxation}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write what you hope to gain from a peer review (what are your goals? FA? GA? etc) and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.
  6. Add a link to your article to the beginning of the Peer Review announcement list.

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WikiProject Taxation}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.
  3. Remove article from Peer review announcement list


[edit] Requests

[edit] Deferred tax

I have done some quite significant work on the deferred tax article to globalize and generally improve.

It is still a work in progress but would be good if someone can review and suggest improvements. --DWR (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester constitutional arguments

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as the next step before submitting the article for FA status. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't find the automated review... left message on talk page. Morphh (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Should work now, sorry. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Transaction privilege tax

I'd like to receive an initial assessment and feedback on what additional information the reviewer believes would enhance the article. (Hsin Pai 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

  • May want to add a See also section to related articles. Ran an automated peer-review that covers some other points I would have made. Morphh (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Peer-Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Supporting organization (charity)

I'd like some perspective and help improving this article should anyone want to spend some time on it. I'm particularly concerned about the organization of the article such as the order I listed the different sections. Consistet depth may also be a problem because I may unjustifiably go into deeper detail in some sections than others. Thanks! EECavazos 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I renamed the "See also" to "References". The See also section should link to other internal articles that are related in some way to this article that are not generally discussed already in the article text. I'm not sure if they are really references though. Some may just be External links - I wasn't sure how to address them. Morphh (talk) 2:21, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This phrasing is confusing to me - consider rewording "donations to a supporting organization garner the same deduction higher donation rate as deductions to public charities." The term "deduction higher donation rate" just sounds like a odd jumble of terms. It's probably my lack of knowledge in this area and this is a common term but it sounds like it's missing something like "deduction of a higher donation rate..." or something. Morphh (talk) 2:27, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Second and Thrid sentences both start with the term "However", which makes for odd prose. Consider rewording - Could probably remove the second "However".Morphh (talk) 2:31, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Check, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider reworking the footnotes with links and such. Take a look at the Citation templates. Duplication of footnotes - first ref should use name="refname". The next time the ref is used you can use the name="refname" />. See WP:FOOT. Morphh (talk) 2:53, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "New restrictions" - Is the word "New" in the header needed. Are their "old" restrictions or something else to consider here? Should it just be called "Restrictions"? Just tossing out ideas as it jumped out at me. Morphh (talk) 2:58, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
Check, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 2:35, 05 May 2007 (UTC) 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winklethorpe

I've tried to review fairly broadly. I noticed a few typos etc while reading through, but I'll give it a second read through for that later. Good article in the making, I feel. I think a better organisation may improve the article, as would giving less technical introductions before going more deeply (Pension Protection Act of 2006 is a good example of a less technical summary)

I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In the lead: “donations to a supporting organization garner the same deduction higher donation rate as deductions to public charities” – While from context I can guess what deduction higher donation rate is, I think you need to more firmly establish the context here for non-US readers.
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Definition section. I had to re-read this section to get how you’d laid it out. I think it’s definitely a good idea to give the 3 strands, and then detail each one. My approach would have been to introduce in less technical language, however. A really rough example would be something like “Under § 509(a)(3) the Internal Revenue Code gives 3 tests for a supporting organisation: an paired organizational and operational test, a relationships test (just making that description up for an example), and a control test (ditto).” And then give headings that use the less technical terms. You can then get technical to your hearts content.
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I’d echo the “New restrictions” heading comment by Morphh. I can’t think of a better one, however. Again, I’d suggest summarizing in less technical language first. The later Pension Protection Act of 2006 section is a good section - perhaps reorganising to use it to introduce this section? Do the later subheadings (Charitable trust) stem from 509(f)?
Check, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do the new restrictions more properly belong in the Reform section?
Check, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Treasury regulations. This is an ongoing issue (the suspension), and you can future-proof it by providing dates.
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reform: Past impact and criticism. Would “impact and criticism” or just “impact” be as good? Also, there are no details of reforms in this section - perhaps it shouldn't be a subheading of reform?
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Congress Mandated survey: could this section use a little more material – perhaps an idea of the conclusions of the survey (unless it’s not done yet, in which case a short “report expected in late 2007” or whatever).
I'll get to, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • History: my instinct would be to put it first, thereby using it to introduce the general background. There are no right answers here, though. Do you have any material on the motivation of its introduction, who the proponents were, etc?
Check, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On the structure, you're the best judge of it. As an example, you could consider a more chronological structure as below:

  • History
  • Definition
    • (subheadings)
  • Impact
  • Reform
    • (Pension Protection Act)
    • (New restrictions)
  • Survey
Check, EECavazos 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is by no means perfect - the mix of technical and narrative might be fairly ugly. Something to consider, though? Winklethorpe (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Business rates

Having expanded the article up from a stub, I'd appreciate some guidance on where to go from here. As it's my first major piece of wikipedia work, I'd appreciate more experienced opinions. In particular, I'd like to know:

  • Is the article is reasonably clear to someone unfamiliar with the topic?
  • Does it go into the correct depth? (There are potentially reams of details that could be expanded on; does it hit the right note?)
  • Does the structure help, or is it a bit too sub-sectioned?
  • Explaining the billing side first, and the rating side second, is technically the wrong way round, but it's the way I usually explain the topic to people. Doing it the other way round seems to leave them bogged down in detail. Does it work in wikipedia?
  • Any manual of style elements I've missed.
  • The lead is undoubtedly weak; I've spent little time on it in the theory that fixing the body of the article will let the lead flow. All hints gratefully received.

All comments gratefully received - I'd rather a harsh comment on something I've missed than leaving it unfixed. Winklethorpe 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Several sections have multiple one sentence paragraphs. Consider forming these into more complete paragraphs. The lead displays this. Morphh (talk) 3:33, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In this phrase "property could have been let for on a particular valuation", I'm not familar with the meaning of the word "let" as used here. Morphh (talk) 0:14, 06 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "An evolving systems of rates" seems like it should say "Evolving systems of rates" or "An evolving system of rates". Morphh (talk) 0:16, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 3:10, 05 May 2007 (UTC) 03:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Articles archived - 2007