Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Peer review/Supporting organization (charity)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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)

• Expand lead to fully summarize article - See WP:LEAD. Morphh ^(talk) 2:32, 05 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to, EECavazos 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Consider blockquotes, {{quote}} tag, or {{quotation}} tag in place of quotations. This article has the right format for it. Morphh ^(talk) 2:46, 05 May 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.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

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)