Talk:Economic development incentive

Tag it as an essay?

I got this article suggested for adding links, read it a little bit, what I realised is that this is like an academic essay or an reasearch paper on the topic. I tried to find words to link but it's hard coz it isn't written like that. So maybe we can term it as an essay?

I don't know the process, I have read some essays on wikipedia so I thought this can go there. Pls give your opinion. AnalyserOP (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I also was suggested this. It is definitely an opinion piece, I just don't know how to change it. Δ≈Δ Beedled (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I searched some guidelines but they include instructions for moving a page, which is for changing its title, or disambiguating it.

@WhatamIdoing can you please help? AnalyserOP (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @AnalyserOP and @Beedled! Thanks for starting a discussion about the problems in this article. I wonder whether the {{Criticism section}} tag might be the most relevant one. I didn't read the article completely, but it looks to me like that the parts before the Economic development incentive#The Critique of Economic Development Incentives section are mostly factual, and the problem appears largely when trying to evaluate it.

If you'd like to have a go at improving the article, then the usual solution is to rearrange the article. Instead of a facts–criticism–praise structure, you might have a structure that looks like definition–process–effectiveness–history (or whatever the content needs – I haven't read the whole thing). A section on ==Effectiveness== (Results, Outcomes – name it whatever you want) could contain both pros and cons (as well as simple facts that aren't really "pro" or "con") related to effectiveness, or a section on ==Property taxes== could talk about the effects on tax structures, etc.

You could start by just cutting a few sentences out of the criticism/praise sections, and pasting them at the end of a related paragraph. Remember to copy any relevant sources if you move a sentence (they can be duplicated easily in the visual editor). An edit summary like "Copyedit" or "Rearrange" is typical for an action like that.

By the way, it's okay for a Wikipedia article to contain facts about opinions, like "Economists criticize this because it doesn't work, but politicians like it because it's popular" or even "Film critics gave the film a positive rating". They need to be sourced, and sometimes they need WP:INTEXT attribution to say exactly which film critic liked the motive, but that kind of information is sometimes relevant. What we strictly need to avoid is adding Wikipedia editors' own opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so I read the whole article properly, and now understand that it's a normal wikipedia page telling about a term. Looking at it, it does read like an essay, but it gives all the information in the way most of the articles on wikipedia do. About restructuring, that can be done, but I guess it will need more information coz the information we currently have is limited(mean, things like pros and cons, or some proper outcomes in the article that we can organize into an section are not included); only the term has been explained by the author using facts. And for me currently it's hard to go find more info about this topic.

When I saw this page, it had the 'written in a promotional tone' tag and reading a few lines plus not seeing any links as we normally do in articles led me to believe that this should rather be an essay. But in the end, it gives information to the reader just like any another article.

Thanks a lot for making suggestions and letting us know that it's just okay for this to be an article; coz that's the most important thing, giving valuable information about the topic.

AnalyserOP (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Also @Beedled, do reply if you have any suggestions. AnalyserOP (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If you look at this link, you can see an example of rearranging the article content. I added a couple of words to make it sound right, but mostly it was a matter of picking out the sentences about whether this does in any good, and putting them next to each other.

Some plain old copyediting work would also be helpful. The writing style is rather legalistic, I think. Simplifying a few things might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow I mean, I read your edits and couldn't believe how you made the whole thing read better just by restructuring and rearranging without having to add anything new. I feel sorry that I gave up and said that it needs more info in my reply above. I should've been patient and should've tried it at least. Thanks for showing how it's done, this will be an ideal example for me when I come across an article needing restructuring. AnalyserOP (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. It sounds like you understand the process now, so I'm sure you'll do fine. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Water

Essay an water Radhe radhe 440 (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)