Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FairTax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
This GA article has gone through an FA Drive and Pre-FA review on WikiProject Taxation, had two peer-reviews, and a prior FAC. I believe we've handled all points and issues presented. Morphh (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's an excellent article. CloudNine 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good to me, although I would like to see more images on tax code compliance section, like a nice little graph. Other than that, great article, well done to everybody who contributed to it --User:Ahadland1234 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I recently reviewed it from the POV of a non-American, and had my minor points speedily addressed. It's a comprehensive article. Winklethorpe 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from a liberal economist. I find this article fascinating from an economic point of view, though I wish it could have just a touch more info on the impact on major accounting firms since they employ so many people in this country. What programs might the government put in place to get these people new jobs? For the last hour or so I've been trying to do calculations on the progressivity of this tax, and it looks good so far, as long as assumptions about the MPC and MPS hold true. If people actually are going to consume as much of their income as they do now, this looks very, very interesting. JHMM13 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Looks pretty good, but I have a few concerns:
- I think it's a bit too internal-links happy (I count well over half a dozen of them). A well organized article needs no internal links, and certainly none to previous sections.
- Also, when linking to a section in another article, the link should make that clear, in the form foo#bar, not bar
- There should be no such things as "main sections" (under "predicted effects")
- I'm not too fond of two headers following each others directly. Some buffer text summarizing the section (much like the lead is a summary of the whole article) shouldn't be difficult to add.
- Circeus 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide a MoS link that discusses these points. I'd like to understand this further as I don't remember reading anything regarding them. Personally, I find the suggestions to be reader unfriendly but I'll go with it. Morphh (talk) 1:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- None of them are actually covered by the MoS (Do we need to justify every single comment on FACs via the MoS? That's a new one.), but in the case of, say "main sections" if people are still reading instead of having gone to read the Main article that covers the parent of these sections, they don't need to be reminded that such a main article exist. The section links is a usability basic concern: links in the form xxx makes people expect that they are going to an article titled "xxx", while the "#" makes it clearer that the link is to a section. Circeus 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to address the section linking by using ": " instead of the "#" and linking the entire title (not just the section title). While a strung together link with a "#" in the middle is certainly clear to us, I'm not sure how clear it is to the normal reader. I wouldn't expect to see such formating in a paper encyclopedia when it makes reference to a subsection of another article, but I understand your point and have tried to address it. I've removed the "main sections" statement and I've added summaries to the double headers. So I feel I've addressed points 2-4. I disagree on point 1 and have not made this change. This would assume that people generally read an article from beginning to end and in order, which I know that I rarely do - I skip to particular sections of interest. In some cases, it would also assume that the reader understood all the concepts and was able to link similar effects/impacts, which usually takes time. Minor internal links that reference the details of points made earlier or later in an article can be very helpful. I don't see the drawback. If this is a big issue and there is more consensus, I'll make the change. For now, I hope that you will still support the article for FA. Thanks Morphh (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of them are actually covered by the MoS (Do we need to justify every single comment on FACs via the MoS? That's a new one.), but in the case of, say "main sections" if people are still reading instead of having gone to read the Main article that covers the parent of these sections, they don't need to be reminded that such a main article exist. The section links is a usability basic concern: links in the form xxx makes people expect that they are going to an article titled "xxx", while the "#" makes it clearer that the link is to a section. Circeus 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide a MoS link that discusses these points. I'd like to understand this further as I don't remember reading anything regarding them. Personally, I find the suggestions to be reader unfriendly but I'll go with it. Morphh (talk) 1:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. No, no, no. Please tell us how "Fair Tax Blog" is a reliable source ????And many of the sources seem clearly partisan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the blog source. It was mainly used as a secondary source to validate that proponents make the claim. It was a well written article and it only validated an proponent opinion, but I understand your point. I'm not sure I'd say that many were partisan, but many are from proponent or opponent sites. Americans For Fair Taxation (non-partisan org) puts out much of the proponent research. I've tried my best to weigh all the good neutral sources to the top and with the most references, but a lot of the detailed research is found on proponent or opponent sites. You don't find a WSJ article going into detail on such issues so to get any comprehensive article, you have to use such sources. I'll take a second look to see how I may be able to ref things better but this may never be achievable. I certainly see many FA articles that use citations from proponent and opponent sites - otherwise such articles would get little detail. Please tell me how I can fix it to your satisfaction. Morphh (talk) 1:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since the blog is gone, and I'm going to be traveling, I'll trust you'll clean anything else up, and strike my Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the blog source. It was mainly used as a secondary source to validate that proponents make the claim. It was a well written article and it only validated an proponent opinion, but I understand your point. I'm not sure I'd say that many were partisan, but many are from proponent or opponent sites. Americans For Fair Taxation (non-partisan org) puts out much of the proponent research. I've tried my best to weigh all the good neutral sources to the top and with the most references, but a lot of the detailed research is found on proponent or opponent sites. You don't find a WSJ article going into detail on such issues so to get any comprehensive article, you have to use such sources. I'll take a second look to see how I may be able to ref things better but this may never be achievable. I certainly see many FA articles that use citations from proponent and opponent sites - otherwise such articles would get little detail. Please tell me how I can fix it to your satisfaction. Morphh (talk) 1:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support An excellent example of how group consensus can produce an unbiased article about a subject which is easy to take a position on. Should be promoted on the front page. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is there a rationale for the fair use image at the top of the article? The book whose cover is shown is only one reference about this issue. A cynic (who, me?) might think the purpose of the image in a feature article is to advertise it. The cover page of the bill submitted from thomas.loc.gov would be public domain and serve a similar role in the article. Also, I see some POV issues with the revenue chart, which shows everyone paying the same or less at a marginal tax rate of 23%, without showing the impact of a 28% or 36% rate as discussed in the text.204.186.60.102 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The rational for the Fair Use is discussed on the image page. The book was a NYT bestseller for several weeks and remained in the top 15 of Non-fiction for quite some time (both hardcover and paperback). The book is co-authored by the bill author, Congressmen John Linder and it is the most known and recognizable image of the FairTax plan and appropriate for the article. We don't have any source data in regard to the 28% rate suggested by Gale to formulate an impact (though it would still be lower then the current average marginal rate of 32.53%), nor do we have the data for the 36% rate by the JCT, which was not an analysis of the FairTax plan. We also have to take into account undue weight policy. This section is a summary style and more detail can be found on the sub-article. I replied to your earlier comment on the article talk. Morphh (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.