Template:Did you know nominations/State aid
- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
State aid
[edit]... that the Republic of Ireland's tax benefits system was judged by the EU to be state aid, and declared Apple would have to pay €13 million in tax as a result?
- ALT1:
that under EU state aid rules, member states' governments are not allowed to buy and run loss-making businesses? - Reviewed: Devonshire White Paper
- ALT1:
5x expanded by 77.95.145.6 (talk) and The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 17:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
Some issues found.
- ✓ This article has been expanded from 313 chars to 2409 chars since 19:20, 02 July 2016 (UTC), a 7.70-fold expansion
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2409 characters
- ✗ Paragraphs [2] (The ... limits.) in this article lack a citation.
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 37.1% confidence. (confirm)
- Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
- No overall issues detected
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 152 characters
- ✓ The C of E has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Devonshire White Paper was performed for this nomination.
Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- My review:
- Article (New):
- Article (Long enough):
- Article (Within policy): I think the article is a little stubby. There's a long quotation in one section, and a few seemingly random examples in another section. I would like to see sections like history etc. Can I have a statement from the nominator about this?
- Hook (Format):
- Hook (Content):I prefer Alt 1.
- QPQ:
- Images: N/A
- Article (New):
Overall, 
holding off on passing until nominator makes statement about article's lack of scope.--Coin945 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Coin945: I have since expanded upon the history section so it is a bit less shorter now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I have pulled this from q3 as it has too many problems. I had to fix three errors just in the hook and one in the article, but reading the rest of the article, it looks like there are further mistatements and grammatical errors. I suggest the nominator find somebody conversant in legal matters to look this nomination over before submitting it again. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)- BTW, I got as far as making several corrections to the hook, so I might as well add the amended hook here:
- ALT2: ... that the EU Commission ruled the Republic of Ireland's tax benefits to Apple to be an illegal form of state aid, and declared that the company would have to pay €13 billion in back tax as a result? Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Gato, I happen to have studied law and I am not quite sure what your concern is. To me, it reads as close to the sources without being too technical. I'll ask @Coin945: to have another look over and see if the proposed amended hook is acceptable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, in retrospect, Gatoclass' amendment to the hook makes much more sense. I have not studied law so I assumed in good faith that it was phrased correctly. But the amended version makes a clear link between the Rep. of Ireland --> Apple, and why Apple had to pay all that money ("illegal" state aid), and that it is the EU NOT Ireland that make the decision. This does however make me cast doubts on the article itself. The 9 sources used appear to be third-party and reliable. it could have a copyedit to tighten up all the paragraphs and make everything a little clearer - for instance after reading the introduction I still have no idea what State Aid actually is. Although the article explains this in the actual body. This is all I can really say without a law background. I recommend asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Law to review it.--Coin945 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This seems to have stalled a little here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- The C of E, did you take Coin945's recommendation to check with the WikiProject? While I see that the lead was modified by you on 19 September after Coin945's post above, you didn't note your fix here, which should have been done, though I don't see any signs of the suggested copyedit. I'm not sure whether Gatoclass would like to chime in here at this point or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I have been busy in the past month. I have just done both copyedit and notification now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @The C of E: I gave the article a copyedit and reduced some awkward language. Unfortunately, I also marked a couple places where the sources you used don't really seem to support the text around where you cited them, and that will probably need to be fixed. There is also one sentence that was confusing enough that I can't fix it as I'm not sure what it's trying to tell me, and I marked that with an in-line clarification tag. Although I studied treaty law in law school and we looked at a lot of EU treaties as examples, I am an American and far from an expert in EU law, especially EU commercial law. It would probably be helpful for someone more versed in EU commercial law to look over the article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I have been busy in the past month. I have just done both copyedit and notification now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, in retrospect, Gatoclass' amendment to the hook makes much more sense. I have not studied law so I assumed in good faith that it was phrased correctly. But the amended version makes a clear link between the Rep. of Ireland --> Apple, and why Apple had to pay all that money ("illegal" state aid), and that it is the EU NOT Ireland that make the decision. This does however make me cast doubts on the article itself. The 9 sources used appear to be third-party and reliable. it could have a copyedit to tighten up all the paragraphs and make everything a little clearer - for instance after reading the introduction I still have no idea what State Aid actually is. Although the article explains this in the actual body. This is all I can really say without a law background. I recommend asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Law to review it.--Coin945 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Gato, I happen to have studied law and I am not quite sure what your concern is. To me, it reads as close to the sources without being too technical. I'll ask @Coin945: to have another look over and see if the proposed amended hook is acceptable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did ask at WP:LAW for an EU law specialist. I'll ask again if we feel it is needed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- This nomination has been hanging around for too long. ALT2 is acceptable and cited. The rest of the review as per Coin945. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)