Talk:London fiscal balance

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from London fiscal balance appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 June 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that London subsidized the rest of the UK by £38.6 billion in the 2016–17 fiscal year?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/London fiscal surplus.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

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.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that London subsidized the rest of the UK by £38.6 billion in the 2016–17 fiscal year? Source: https://www.scotfact.com/fiscal-transfers

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Malhotra

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Y Article is long enough (3125 characters), new enough (created and nominated on 29 April), and article is within policy. Earwig copyvio is only picking up quotes, no actual copyvios
? Buidhe Is there a reason why the article focuses on the 2016-17 financial year, when that was 3 years ago? Only using 3 years old figures makes the article seem outdated. Are the figures still similar for the 2018-19 tax year? (I'm guessing 2019-20 figures haven't been calculated yet)
? Hook is short enough, well sourced and interesting, though I think it should be "subsidised" not "subsidized" to comply with British English (as it's an article about London and the UK). Again if there were newer figures, I think that would be more interesting/relevant for the hook
Y QPQ done
Overall, a good article but a couple of issues that need resolving. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: I was unable to find all the relevant information calculated for 2017–18 so I used the most recent available financial year. 2) The article uses British Oxford spelling, which is perfectly acceptable MOS:ENGVAR. b uidhe 21:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y 2016-17 figures are fine, as these are the most recent well-sourced figures. Article is fine according to MOS:ENGVAR- I was unaware of Oxford spelling as a variant of British English, totally fine to use it in articles
Good to go. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]