Template:Did you know nominations/Ontario provincial budget, 2013

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 Allen3 ^talk 11:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ontario provincial budget, 2013

(

)

... that the 2013 Ontario budget repealed a sales tax sunset provision so that the government could collect tax debts?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2014 National League Wild Card Game (see my DYK tracker) Mind matrix 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nominated at 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

Article was ~~created new by Mindmatrix on January 8–9, at which time it had 1458 DYK-eligible characters. Following expansion on January 23, it has 7843 (> 5*1458 = 7290).~~ moved to namespace on January 23. The nomination was created on January 23. Thus the article meets DYK criteria for date of expansion, as well as length.
The source for the hook is Deloitte, LLP, a Toronto law firm, and KPMG's "Tax News Flash. A quick web search suggests that this fact (the repeal of the sunset clause) seems to be pretty common knowledge and is also described by the Ontario Ministry of Finance. Other sources (PwC, for example) confirm that the (stated) motive for this repeal was so the government could retain some power over retail businesses still in debt. The hook is not very specific but is accurate and probably intriguing to some, so I'm going to sign off on it.
Overall, the article is written in a way that seems fairly neutral (to someone with no specific expertise in Ontarian fiscal policy, anyway). The list of references overrepresents corporate rather than journalistic sources—though at this point the difference is getting dubious—but nevertheless does the job, for our purposes, I think, in supporting the modest and factual claims being made. This news article in the National Post supports many points also.
To the author, User:Mindmatrix, I might ask whether the "Taxation and investment" sub-section ought possibly to be moved from underneath "Expenditures" to the (currently very small) section on "Revenues". Maybe there's something I'm missing about that.
For DYK purposes I deem this hook fully good to go and I ~~think~~ thank Mindmatrix for the submission. groupuscule (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)