This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
A fact from London fiscal balance appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 June 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
Yoninah (
talk) 01:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Created by
Buidhe (
talk). Self-nominated at 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).reply
Y Article is long enough (3125 characters), new enough (created and nominated on 29 April), and article is within policy. Earwig copyvio is only picking up quotes, no actual copyvios
?Buidhe Is there a reason why the article focuses on the 2016-17 financial year, when that was 3 years ago? Only using 3 years old figures makes the article seem outdated. Are the figures still similar for the 2018-19 tax year? (I'm guessing 2019-20 figures haven't been calculated yet)
? Hook is short enough, well sourced and interesting, though I think it should be "subsidised" not "subsidized" to comply with British English (as it's an article about London and the UK). Again if there were newer figures, I think that would be more interesting/relevant for the hook
Y QPQ done
Overall, a good article but a couple of issues that need resolving.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Joseph2302: I was unable to find all the relevant information calculated for 2017–18 so I used the most recent available financial year. 2) The article uses British
Oxford spelling, which is perfectly acceptable
MOS:ENGVAR. buidhe 21:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Y 2016-17 figures are fine, as these are the most recent well-sourced figures. Article is fine according to
MOS:ENGVAR- I was unaware of
Oxford spelling as a variant of British English, totally fine to use it in articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
A fact from London fiscal balance appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 June 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
Yoninah (
talk) 01:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Created by
Buidhe (
talk). Self-nominated at 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).reply
Y Article is long enough (3125 characters), new enough (created and nominated on 29 April), and article is within policy. Earwig copyvio is only picking up quotes, no actual copyvios
?Buidhe Is there a reason why the article focuses on the 2016-17 financial year, when that was 3 years ago? Only using 3 years old figures makes the article seem outdated. Are the figures still similar for the 2018-19 tax year? (I'm guessing 2019-20 figures haven't been calculated yet)
? Hook is short enough, well sourced and interesting, though I think it should be "subsidised" not "subsidized" to comply with British English (as it's an article about London and the UK). Again if there were newer figures, I think that would be more interesting/relevant for the hook
Y QPQ done
Overall, a good article but a couple of issues that need resolving.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Joseph2302: I was unable to find all the relevant information calculated for 2017–18 so I used the most recent available financial year. 2) The article uses British
Oxford spelling, which is perfectly acceptable
MOS:ENGVAR. buidhe 21:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Y 2016-17 figures are fine, as these are the most recent well-sourced figures. Article is fine according to
MOS:ENGVAR- I was unaware of
Oxford spelling as a variant of British English, totally fine to use it in articles
Article is long enough (3125 characters), new enough (created and nominated on 29 April), and article is within policy. Earwig copyvio is only picking up quotes, no actual copyvios
Buidhe Is there a reason why the article focuses on the 2016-17 financial year, when that was 3 years ago? Only using 3 years old figures makes the article seem outdated. Are the figures still similar for the 2018-19 tax year? (I'm guessing 2019-20 figures haven't been calculated yet)
Overall, a good article but a couple of issues that need resolving.
Joseph
2302 (
talk) 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Good to go.
Joseph
2302 (
talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
