Talk:501(h) election/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LuisVilla (talk · contribs) 05:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Generally strong! Some very minor nitpicks: "sole focus on financial caps" - should caps here be expenditures? Slightly repetitive, I realize, but caps isn't quite right either. "Provisions" - lots of this section deals with things that aren't the provisions themselves; maybe a more descriptive section title? And/or consider breaking this up into a few more sections - e.g., background, restrictions, penalties? The sentence containing "not very advantageous" (Sec. 2) is rather long and somewhat hard to follow. "which was ruled to include" - simply "which included" or maybe "which was defined to include"? Consider splitting up history into pre-history(?) and passage and implementation of the election provision?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Re words to watch: "has been called" - by who? Just Berry? Or others?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	My only comment here is that the end-of-paragraph citations in lots of places make it a little harder to follow what source is being cited for what point (e.g., third paragraph of section 1). I might consider revising to sprinkle those more directly throughout the text in the relevant location (though I know that doesn't always make sense).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	I'd prefer it if nothing relied directly on IRS resources (e.g., footnotes 4 and 5); they're not exactly primary sources but they're not ideal either.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm roughly familiar with the practical use of the exemption, but knew none of the history. Very interessting!
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Though I might trim down the IRS caption, which is long and somewhat redundant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Moved to GA after followup edits. Good article on a useful topic!

@LuisVilla: Thanks for the review! I've made the requested changes. Although for a topic like this, I'd think it's actually more reliable to cite the IRS directly for basic factual information, since secondary sources may make mistakes or misinterpret the regulations. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with citing both the IRS source and a secondary source (it's always useful to have a primary source available!), it's just helpful if we're not the ones interpreting it. Does that distinction make sense? (I'm pretty sure there is an essay on that somewhere, but heck if I can find it...)—Luis (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)