Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Canadian federal budget

The following is an archived discussion of 2013 Canadian federal budget's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC).

2013 Canadian federal budget

(

)

... that tariffs will increase for thousands of goods imported to Canada from 72 nations as a result of the 2013 Canadian federal budget?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Steps of Cincinnati Mind matrix 16:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

5x expanded by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nominated at 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

Date, length and hook all OK. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

- Full in the knowledge that this is not my area of expertise, could someone else please review this? The article reads like a newspaper article. Might be fine, but I'd like some reassurance. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the budget bill hasn't been passed yet (though with a Conservative majority in Parliament, it will be), so I had to use phrases like "will be" or "is expected to". I do agree that it has some similarity to a newspaper article, but I have sourced everything, and even verified statements to the contents of the budget bill itself. Mind matrix 21:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly can't doubt you on the veracity of the claims! Everything is perfectly sourced, I'd just like someone else to look at the tone. Reviewing is not my forte, but it doesn't sit right with me. Might be that it just needs some tweaking.

- Just putting this in so it doesn't get buried. Help us other people! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

New review regarding tone requested by potential promoting editor—is the article properly encyclopedic? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is something I am willing and (hopefully) able to deal with. I'll commence with the above-suggested "tweaking" to adjust article "tone." Shouldn't require to much time; I'll report back here upon completion. Penwatchdog (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've completed the above edit. I treaded lightly and stuck to specific concerns, though there's room for more if necessary. If one of the above reviewers can make one more read to judge "tone," the nom may be ready-to-go. Penwatchdog (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Long enough. Expanded 5x, article sourced, but hook reference is offline. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think it's incumbent on any approval to specifically address the issue of tone, which was the entire reason this has been waiting for a new review, and this one did not. Can the reviewer please comment on it per the earlier concerns? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, may have been a tad hasty. The Baltimore Sun ref given has a quote from a business professor stating "more than a thousand items" - I think that should be in the hook, rather than the current "thousands of goods" - other than that, I don't feel I can add any more to help you here. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added ALT1, replacing "thousands" from the original hook with "more than a thousand". Mind matrix 22:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that tariffs will increase for more than a thousand goods imported to Canada from 72 nations as a result of the 2013 Canadian federal budget?

To be honest, I don't think the tone poses that much of a problem. What I do notice, though, is that this article only speaks about the contents of the budget and lists a response from some technocrat. That may be where the previously voiced tone issues originated from. What we lack here is context. I wonder if there was any political side to this, seeing as this bill has apparently been presented in parliament. Was there any debate on the issue? Furthermore, a bit of a background to the budget may be nice as well. Is there a deficit that is expanded or cut, or is this government perhaps adding or subtracting to a surplus? I'm not saying these aspects all deserve super long sections, but a few lines establishing a context may be nice.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this nominee still here. I'll agree with Amber: even while I was tweaking the "tone" in a previous contribution noted above, i didn't feel the tone was much of a problem. Sorry i'm just confirming another opinion but i won't be able to help with it beyond that. Lateral coverage would round things out though (and it must exist), but maybe not necessary in passing the article's DYK nom? Penwatchdog (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like some work on my suggestions. As it stands, the article's subject is treated too one-dimensionally to pass the DYK mark.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I decided to simply expand the article instead of making minor incremental changes. It'll need another full review. (To be honest, I don't see what the problem was with the article as I originally submitted - I thought it satisfied all the DYK criteria.) Mind matrix 14:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Holy schmoly! That's one big overhaul. Nice job! I'm curious though; you also removed some contents like the response to the budget from that one guy. Why? —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 08:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still there. Check the second paragraph of the "Taxation" section. In fact, the "Content" section was simply renamed Taxation, then the last two sentences of the section were moved to the end of the article. Mind matrix 15:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah. My bad. It looks good now! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 15:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)