(Redirected from
Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/GA1)
GA Review 1
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 03:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hidden sections are outdated. Scroll down for most recent updates.
| Read comments |
|---|
Hello, I haven't done many GA reviews so I'll just leave some thoughts about this article and get this process started.
All right, I'm going to stop there. This article is too long and I find myself glazing over sections because the prose is not tight enough. By this I mean there are numerous example where a sentence is used where a word could do. This article should have sections split:
Overall I find this article an extremely thorough analysis, clearly with a lot of work put into it, that needs some slight tweaking to become a GA. In the meantime I'm going to upgrade this article to B class. I hope that this review can get the ball rolling on some other reviews, too. Kind Regards, LT90001 ( talk) 03:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Discussion
| Read comments |
|---|
Hi there! Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I need to let you know that I'm about to shoot off and can't reply again for at least 24 hours, but I ought to leave a few quick comments:
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Length. Yep, definitely long. It almost certainly can be made more concise (such as the formatting clean up and prose you've mentioned), but I think most content can't justifiably be deleted; it's simply a complex topic, and whilst we need to ensure WP:Summary, comprehensiveness pushes in the other direction. Re: WP:SIZERULE "These rules of thumb only apply to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." I will try and find out the prose size vs the mark-up size (300kb) asap, but do feel it fair to emphasize that rules of thumb can be violated if required to provide a comprehensive summary, which is my intent?
Prose. Definitely agree (can't promise I'll agree with every proposed change - namely the 'consists of' > 'arose from' - but at a glance I'm happy with most everything else cited) - will have to address when I get back. Although (as much as I appreciate the offer), if I and other editors work on it we'd avoid potential conflict of interest for reviewers - not sure how that works, but thought I'd mention it. Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 13:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Parenthesized comments. Perhaps some we can/should go over some, but generally I felt this was correct: e.g. Olympia Snowe's retirement isn't the same subject as the topic of the paragraph in which its included but it is related, interesting to readers, and can't really be included elsewhere (given the appropriate context). But for others, perhaps I could just remove the parentheses from, say, the Clinton/SCHIP example? Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Citations. For some uncited info, I thought wikilink to the program was adequate instead of a reference? e.g. Clinton/SCHIP link, Gruber/Gruber's page (Otherwise I can just copy a ref from those pages, but as I say, I thought wikilink for those kind of tangential things was/is sufficient). And I have been meaning to edit the page to make the citations complete and consistent. Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, look forward to hearing back from you (and I will get started on those edits asap). Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC) |
Update 1
| Read comments |
|---|
Hey guys. I just thought I'd leave a note about what I intend to do to improve the quality of the article:
|
MOS issues
| Read comments |
|---|
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Hi There!
Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Update 2
| Read comments |
|---|
|
Right. I'm going to have to write a bit of a longer response here. Firstly, we're both eager to get this article up to GA class. However in the interests of getting along well with fellow Wikipedians it might be good to show some level of amenability to DocJames/JMH649's comments, even if you're not going to change too much. Secondly, I can't remember if I have notified you or not, but I have earlier placed a comment on WikiMed here requesting some more comments. I did this because of the advice in Reviewing good articles that one should get a second opinion on a point of dispute, namely that the article is too long. I'd rather get some second opinions and build consensus on this point of difference rather than stake my entire review around it. On that note, I have copied and pasted the text of the article into my sandbox and it's 130kb there. The kilobyte count is a little immaterial really; having review other articles, and in light of the comments above about length and number of references (related to length) I think there is consensus that irregardless of the kilobyte count, this article is too long. Moreover, I genuinely think that the effective provisions section is below the overall quality of the article. It means that the article doesn't match the "summary style" criteria of a good article (point 3 on Good article criteria) and it is very hard to more-thoroughly review an article that's so long. You can definitely use {{Seealso|x}} or {{Main|x}} to refer to a second article whilst preserving some content. Without these changes I think there is consensus that this article can't be promoted to GA status. The fact you've added a small table of contents implies you've also given some thought to how long the article is. It's very tempting to want to put everything in one article, especially when all the information is so crucial. Unfortunately that's not always possible, and perhaps if you think of articles as sections rather than standalone chapters in a book it will make the transfer easier. The number of references will also decrease if this content is transferred to another article. Moving the content will also improve the focus, decrease need for illustrations, and relocate the troublesome word/table and overflow image (the comments above). As it is, without this change, despite it's many good attributes, this article can't be promoted to GA status. LT90001 ( talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Update 3
| Read comments |
|---|
|
Ok, so I feel like I've taken a good crack at addressing the length - moving content/prose tightening. I'll definitely keep looking over it myself, but I'd appreciate some secondary input at this point: a fresh set of eyes may see room for improvement that I might be missing. (Also, re: Prototime, whilst I am quite in favor of an overview of provisions, if anyone's got thoughts on a better way to do that section - I dunno if a table or anything would make it more readable - I'd love to hear it because I'm having trouble thinking of something there). P.S. Re: Overview - I think it's small enough that it could stay as bullet points, but it's more of a 'if this can be done better' kind of deal (as opposed to 'this needs to be done better'). Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 18:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
On a separate style-related note, I wanted to mention that this article appears to have too many wikilinks. For instance, I've counted the number of times that the NFIB v. Sebelius article is linked to in this article as six. Per WP:OVERLINK, generally something should be wikilinked to only in the lead and the first time it appears in the content below the lead (infoboxes/footnotes excepted). I'm not particularly a stickler for that rule where it seems helpful to include an additional wikilink or two beyond that, but when I read this article, I do find the number (and size) of blue links a bit distracting. It also may be helpful to reduce the number of words in piped links, as a few of them contain rather large phrases that are linked. I'm happy to help with this, but I wanted to mention it here first (as a few removals may be judgment calls). – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 04:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
On second blush looking much better! Some thoughts:
To leave you with two positive things about the article, the attribution style is very good - always starting with "According to (x), ...". I think that's wise for an article like this! And lastly, I'll point our that that the Good article review criteria ( WP:GACR are not as strict as the featured article review criteria and a GA candidate doesn't have to adhere to the manual of style completely. ( Wikipedia:GACR#Notes) LT90001 ( talk) 07:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Update 4
| Read comments |
|---|
|
Let's have a review where this article's at in terms of the Good Article Criteria ( WP:GACR):
At this stage, I'd like to note that the advised normal duration is a week ( WP:GAN/I). In this light I'm going to put this review on hold ( GAN#hold). I think it might benefit the article, the reviewer (that's me!) and the review if we slow this process down a little. I can see this article making GA, but in the medium-term, and I don't think there are any 'easy fixes' that can get the citation issue worked out in the near-to-short term. If you're a participant at any active Wikiprojects, an extra set of hands helping do-up this article might help tighten the prose and citations. I'll drop in every few days, and other reviewers are welcome to leave comments on this review during this period. LT90001 ( talk) 08:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I think with an article as vast as this it must be quite a lot to do as a one-man show, so I support the inclusion of some extra editors to get some new eyes on the job. LT90001 ( talk) 11:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is looking much better and the prose size is significantly down to 85k of readable text and 'only' 31 full page views from top to bottom of article (stopping @ references), including contents and those two huge pictures (I'm only using this as a metric to indicate how much the article as changed). I'll start with a full review later today. LT90001 ( talk) 00:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
This article is too big to chew off at a single time, so I'll review in chunks. LT90001 ( talk)
Lede + Provisions
Lede + Provisions
 Done |
|---|
|
Legislative History
Legislative History
Done |
|---|
|
Public policy
Change in number of uninsured
Change in number of uninsured
Done |
|---|
|
Insurance Coverage
- Moved to preceding subsection, Fixed Suggest topic sentence = "The ACA has two primary mechanisms for increasing insurance coverage: increasing the coverage of Medicare, and creating state-based 'insurance exchanges'", as it is a little confusing what the two mechanisms are at the moment. You can then alter the paragraph accordingly.
The paragraphs "The insurance exchanges are a method... " and "The aforementioned regulations ..." could do with some citation bundling, it is difficult to read with so many citations.
Question: I managed to get a few but not a lot of ones from the same author to bundle; although hopefully some of the editors have made it more readable regardless.
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's looking better, but there's still an issue where citations interrupt sentences. To get rid of this, I suggest:
- and inflation)[138] through regulations:[139][89]. Group these three citations, and start a new sentence after "through regulations."
- "state exchanges[143] to" move this citation to end of sentence.
- It's looking better, but there's still an issue where citations interrupt sentences. To get rid of this, I suggest:
Some intrawiki links could be trimmed from these two paragraphs. These include the two links to "death spiral", two links to "adverse selection" and "Congressional Budget Office", which is surely linked elsewhere.
- Question: I realize it's unusual, but I thought they were justified: For the CBO, it hadn't been linked in that subsection and since I was only referring to it by acronym I thought it best to hedge bets for the reader. For the other two, the problem is that since you had the concepts are only being alluded and then referenced, I thought it made sense to reference them both - that way readers could realize and follow a link to an alluded concept and not be mystified by the lack of link to the concept once referred if they didn't check the former?
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- I see your point. As a commentator overtly makes the link to "death spiral" I don't think there's a need for the implicit link. Fair enough for CBO; this is a long article and readers might not get to the other links. Some of the allusions (for example 'free-rider problem') are actually quite illuminating. I think in order to reduce the wikilink load and enhance readability it would be best to remove the second reference to "adverse selection," which is more oblique and already alluded to anyway. LT90001 ( talk) 01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have mentioned below some long sentences which could be split up for readability purposes.
Specific suggestions:
- Fixed "fill out a form to the government that will determine their eligibility for subsidies"... suggest add "fill out a form that will be used to..." for clarity
- Fixed? For neutrality, suggest change from "( contrary to some rumous" -> "Although there has been some controversy, Members of congress..." and remove parenthesis.
- Fixed Suggest remove "etc." as it is not very encyclopedic. There might be more reasons but I'm confident you've listed the main ones.
- "And price regulations " -> "Price regulations"
- Question: I really think that the 'And' is necessary to signal the end of the list (of ways to make it affordable - subsidies, competition, price regulations)?
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed "The aforementioned regulations " -> "These regulations" (aforementioned is a little too technical)
- Fixed? New sentence "enrollment,[129][130] without which" -> "Without this, "
- "and the limits on open enrollment" not quite sure what this means
- Fixed? For readability, suggest flip sentence to be: "Without this, a vicious cycle could occur, in which ..." and new sentence "This could result in insurance death spirals."
- Do you mean the failure to enroll penalty: "six million will pay the penalty in 2016.[154][155] "?
- Fixed For readability, suggest split "Under the law, setting-up an exchange..." into 2-3 sentences.
- Fixed "discretion; and " -> "discretion (comma) and"
- Fixed Consider integrating parenthesis into text and starting a new sentence here: "functions), whereas "
Change in insurance standards
Change in insurance standards
Done |
|---|
|
I will more-fully review this section in several days' time. Would it be possible for you to run your eyes over the paragraphs, particularly paragraphs 2 and 3, and decrease the intensity of the technical language? For example, "The analysis forecasts that by 2016, for the non-group market comprising 17% of the market, premiums per person would increase by 10 to 13% but that over half of these insureds would receive subsidies that would decrease the premium paid to "well below" premiums charged under current law. " For the purposes of readability, I would also request that would add a topic sentence to paragraphs 2, 4 and 6, as I find it a little confusing to work out how they fit into the overall section given the technical language. Sorry, I am just a meek medical reviewer! Kindly, LT90001 ( talk) 09:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to do this - apologies for not having done so sooner; as you may have noticed, it got busy here recently, but things seem to have settled done so I've been able to get back to resolving the issues you've been highlighting. But I won't do that tonight after having worked on the rest (Sorry, I need sleep - I'm only human! =P) =) Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 15:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, I'll await your changes before I get to this section. I'm aware of the discussions on the article and admire your perseverance and dedication in improving this article. LT90001 ( talk) 01:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
| Edit Request (Resolved) |
|---|
Done! =) Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 02:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
Feedback
- Much easier to read.
- For readability suggest replace "individual market" as "market for individuals" and then put in brackets for small and large groups the % of the market, eg: "the market for indivduals would comprise 17% of the total health insurance market... the market for small groups (17% of the market)..." and so on.
- Sentence "The bulk of the savings were in reduced premiums " is uncited
Healthcare cost inflation
Having read the section on the federal deficit below this section, would it make more sense to move most of the content here? As it is the content is quite similar.
The following should be changed as it could be constued as NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE:
- The two quotes from Jonathan Cohn and Joanathan Gruber. These should be paraphrased in text: for example, "The CBO estimate has been criticised as failing to take into account..."
The following are small grammatical gripes:
- Here: "requires numerous pilot programs and demonstrations that may affect healthcare costs", "requires" is an intransitive verb and needs an object ("requires... to")
Other comments include:
- This list: "Several studies have attempted to explain the reduction in the rate of annual increase. Reasons " and the paragraph below is a off-topic, as it appears to be talking about reasons that healthcare cost inflation has not increased in the period 2002-2009, whereas the section and article relate to the PPACA. If you retain, I suggest cut it by at least a paragraph and alter to explain why this is relevant.
- The two images are too big. I suggest either remove one (the first image most likely, as this graph simply shows healthcare costs rising with respect to GDP, which is expressed in the text), or put them as thumbnails with a caption along the lines of "Rising healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP, 2000-2011 (click to view larger image)", so that readers still know that the full image exists, but so that the images don't stand out like sore thumbs in this article.
- The phrase about having a track record of underestimating is repeated in the section on "federal deficit"; suggest you delete here and retain there.
Federal deficit
A good mix of opinions.
The following are small grammatical fixes:
- Fixed "total outlays (expenditure) and "total receipts (revenue), maybe use the intrawikilinking to remove this paraphrasing, it is odd to see an article paraphrase itself.
- Fixed "on the ACA, which enabled " -> "that enabled" (without comma preceding)
- Fixed? "period (because " suggest integrate into text: "(comma) because..."
- Fixed Suggest reword "editors Noam Scheiber (an economist) and Jonathan Cohn (a healthcare policy analyst), " to "editors Noam Scheiber and Jonathan Cohn" with no introduction (as they have been introduced already); if retain introduction, suggest integrate into text, eg. "editors economist Noan Scheiber and health-care policy analyst Jonathan Cohn"
Other notes include:
- Fixed This paragraph "found to be overpaid (relative to government Medicare); and reductions in Medicare reimbursements to hospitals that do not meet standards of efficiency and care." is uncited.
- ✗ Suggest reword "- omitting its cost from the ACA is no different than omitting the cost of the Bush tax cuts" to a passive voice, such as "However, it has been argued that not including ... is no different to..."
-
Note: I have wondered whether a different example should be used, or whether the sentence is equally understandable with a generic "no different than omitting the cost of any other law" (I thought 'no'). However, the suggested reword "it has been argued" implies a degree of ambiguity whereas the intent of the sentence is to address a common misunderstanding. That's why I included the CBO letter that explicitly notes that it's looking at the cumulative effect of two bills, as requested by Paul Ryan, even though they are different + the more plain language source (Chait) and external analysts (CBPP) to verify. Given that the cost of the doc fix would remain even if the ACA were repealed, I feel any ambiguity is too misleading.
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
-
- Image's caption " CBO: Deficit reduction under ACA; the "bump“ is a little unclear. Suggest reword and cite the CBO heritage. For example, "Deficit reduction under the PPACA [cit]". Also, this might benefit from a sentence in text explaining healthcare costs will go up before they go down (which I assume is the function of this image)
-
Note: I added the citation but I'd prefer to keep ACA>PPACA, it's consistent with the article and with the CBO i.e. the title in the image + they, as I read it, use 'ACA' to refer to the 'PPACA as amended (by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Bill, subsequent related judicial decisions, statutory changes, and administrative actions)' -
See footnote #1.
- Question: Actually, the main purpose of including image was to have a visual aide to easily show that the CBO estimates net-deficit reduction (even after the coverage expansion starts); the reason I added the 'bump' text to the citation is to make sure that any readers wondering why the deficit reduction is not uniform in the first ten years is because of the one-off expansion of coverage. I thought "The CBO separately noted that while most of the spending provisions do not begin until 2014, revenue will still exceed spending in those subsequent years." was sufficient?
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- From what I understand and you have said, this image has been included to show the impact of the ACA on the US budget (and thus the debt). So a clearer title might be "CBO: heathcare budget impact of the ACA 2010-22. The 2015-18 inflection reflects the initial expansion of healthcare coverage." LT90001 ( talk) 08:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Sorry, one more:
- "commonly heard " -> "commonly-heard" or just "common"
Employer mandate and part-time working hours
Citations
- Fixed This assertion "stay in place." is uncited.
- "As of yet, however, only a small percent of companies have shifted their workforce towards more part-time hours (4% in a survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis).[254]" This is a primary source and I am not sure that the FRB of Minneapolis is representative of the entire country.
- Question:
The FRBM study was conducted within the 9th district (out of the
12 Federal Reserve Bank system districts); which covers MT, ND, SD, MN, and parts of WI and MI. That said, it may be the study is not representative. Although I've been meaning to read several articles, when I have some free time, which might give me something to add; the problem is that there seem to have been few studies providing hard data on the issue, so this is one of the few pieces of evidence we actually have, so I thought it better to include it along with context and evidence provided by the other sources?
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 11:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is a guideline for medical articles ( WP:MEDRS). This study would be called a "primary study" and we actively try and avoid using these, because the results can be easily misinterpreted or distorted, can be specific to the area or group that was studied, and may simply be the result of statistical variation. So I think it might be best to remove this study whilst we await the release of results from a larger secondary study. LT90001 ( talk) 08:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Workers who do not receive insurance from an employer plan will still be able to purchase insurance on the exchanges." is uncited.
- Question: I included this mainly to clarify for any unsure readers, but the substance itself seems well established from both the 'change in number of uninsured' and 'insurance exchanges...' sections - I figured with those (well-referenced) preceding sections, this sentence didn't need a citation as it would be unlikely to be challenged? (I have none-the-less copied one over).
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 11:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed? "law.[262][263][264][265][247] " has six citations (two are bundled); suggest you remove 2-3.
Grammar & readability:
- Fixed Suggest remove "and the employer mandate was a part of this attempt" as meaning is clear from position in paragraph.
- Fixed Suggest move "(44% of the total population) " to after the 54% statistic for consistency and readability
- Fixed? "situation; however " new sentence -> "situation. However, "
- Fixed "medically related " -> "medically-related"
- Fixed "employer’s " -> "employers(apostrophe)"
- Fixed "political rationale of " -> "rationale for"
Other:
- Fixed This sentence seems a little off-topic: "(At the same time, though, some analysts ... rather than using the 50-employee and 30-hour cut-offs).[253][262]" ; if retain, suggest reword to "Some analysts have suggested an alternate 'pay or play' system..." Either way, this entire sentence shouldn't be in parentheses.
- (Update note: I will go over the 'Healthcare cost inflation,' 'MOS issues,' and remaining 'Insurance Coverage' bits asap (but no more tonight) whilst I await your replies/reviews of other sections.) Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 11:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I will stop here, review "political" in one chunk, and "opposition and resistance" in another chunk.
- Virginia is a Commonwealth, not a State per se. As in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the, "State of Virginia" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmcm ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
More MOS issues
Also, there may be too many external links. I'm not sure the NYT and WSJ topic pages are necessary, and the article from the Atlantic seems a bit random (there are hundreds of magazine articles on the subject; why is this the most relevant?) -- Ypnypn ( talk) 14:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Political
Right! Getting to the end of the review. I've reviewed the two sections and lede as well. LT90001 ( talk) 08:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Public opinion
- "Polls indicate" -> "US polls indicate"
- The Reuters-Ipsos poll results, as mentioned earlier, are out of place in bullet form. I feel that this impacts on readability and gives undue weight to a particular source. However, I understand that this is provided as an example of US public opinion illustrating what has been noted in the first and second paragraphs. However, in-text it is out of place. Some suggestions might be to include it in a quote or table stucture.
- The last two items should not be bulleted (other polls... other specific ideas...) as these weren't from the R-I poll. This may fix the readability concerns above, as the list would then be much shorter.
- Style-related only: (52%–34%) normally reported small-> big (34-52%)
- Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that when a question is presented for/against, the results are reported "for -> against" and not "big -> small". I'm certain that's how bill vote totals in legislatures are stylized, but I'm not entirely sure that this applies to opinion poll results, so I could be wrong. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 23:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Obamacare
- "for the uninsured (comma) according to "
- "without having government take over healthcare (question mark)'. " Although have seen both styles used in nested quotes
- "most common colloquial term to " -> "term used to"
- "Stuart Seidel, NPR's managing editor, said that the term "seems to be straddling somewhere between being a politically-charged term and an accepted part of the vernacular." is uncited.
Myths
- "Independent Payment Advisory Board " suggest wikilink
- "advance(hyphen)care ". Wikilink?
- I have moved the opinion by Ypnypn here:
- The section titled "Myths" violates
WP:WTW: "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." --
Ypnypn (
talk) 13:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ypnypn points out that "myth" is a "contentious label" ( WP:LABEL) and a "word to watch" ( WP:WTW). Such words "should be used with care...". However, it is also noted that the WP:WTW policy "should not be applied rigidly" and "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia" (quotes taken from WP:WTW). I believe that here the use of the word "myth" falls within the OED definition (" a widely held but false belief or idea") and, specifically, that the scholarly context has been established, so it is reasonable to use it. As I am quoting from the policy, to ensure that I am not selectively paraphrasing or misinterpreting the policy, consult it directly here: WP:WTW. LT90001 ( talk) 09:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the "formal use of the term" means a myth as in mythology (i.e. a traditional story, usually involving gods or other supernatural things). For example, Genesis creation narrative is described as a creation myth. The OED definition is the "informal sense", probably. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 12:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- The section titled "Myths" violates
WP:WTW: "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." --
Ypnypn (
talk) 13:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Opposition and resistance
- Legal challenges great to see a child article.
State rejections of Medicaid expansion
- "of the poverty level " suggest remove wikilink from "the"
- "However, the Supreme Court ruling created the potential... and the subsidy eligibility threshold" contains assertions that should have adjacent citations, rather than grouped at the end.
- "below 100% of the poverty line" suggest remove "100%", as this is implied when you say "below the poverty line"
Noncooperation
- suggest rename to "Non-cooperation" (OED spelling)
- "required by federal law to functioning " -> "to the functioning of..."
Congressional opposition and government shutdown
- contains a "citation needed"
- suggest de-wikilink "APAB" as you have wikilinked it above.
Repeal efforts
- "None of the bills were considered by either body." is uncited
- I simply removed this sentence. It seems like more trouble than its worth to find a source saying that these two specific bills, out of the many repeal efforts, were not considered by either body. The more important point is that these bills were the first repeal bills to be proposed (and clearly they failed). – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 00:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Job consequences of repeal
- "once they have health insurance outside of their jobs." is uncited (although I would hesitate to guess it is covered by the in-sentence citation).
Re-review of Lede
Having now reviewed the entire article I will re-review the lede:
- The lede covers the law, its provisions and challenges.
- Using citations in the lead, whilst not always recommended stylistically, is a wise choice considering the contentious nature of the article.
Conclusion
Prototime, thanks so much for helping out. I will shortly conclude this review, but there's one outstanding issue, and that's the two very large images. I suggest that you put them in a gallery format with labels, that allows users to click to view more, or put them in captioned images. The current state is not readable and preventing nomination. I would welcome any of your thoughts, this issue has previously been discussed by Sb101 and myself in this review. LT910001 ( talk) 00:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to help, LT910001. I've turned the images into thumbnails with captions; let me know if they still need some work. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 01:35, 20 October 2013 (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. | Very |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes. |
| 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. | Yes, see comments below. |
|
|
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. | Yes, see comments below. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes, see comments below. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | See comments below. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | See comments below. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | See comments below. |
| 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. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | A solid article. Well done. |
Comments
Will be updated shortly, when the issue with images is resolved. LT910001 ( talk) 01:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I am promoting this article to GA status and commend the primary nominator, Sb101, on their continued and persistent improvement to the article. This nomination has been a very long process with extensive discussion on numerous points, and has been thoroughly looked-over by myself and several other reviewers. I would strongly encourage any commentator to read the above discussions before offering commentary on this review. I will note some particular points with regard to this article for future reviewers or readers of this review:
- Firstly, I would like to (again) commend the primary nominee, Sb101, who's been working tirelessly on the article's talk page and on this review. And thanks to Prototime for taking over at the last minute.
- I find this article to be readable and concise. This issue of length has been raised above, and as discussed, considering the contentious and broad nature of the issue covered, I feel that the current length is adequately broad without being excessively specific. This is warranted to give adequate coverage to each portion of the article.
- This article contains numerous citations. There is a risk of citation overload. However, at the current stage, and considering the contentious nature of the article, I think this is a reasonable and suitable choice.
- Neutrality. This article receives a large view count (9 million plus per year) and in society at-large, there is a notable debate. I find the article provides a NPOV analysis and portrayal of the bill, its provisions and history, whilst acknowledging the debate and the primary reasons for it.
- Stability. With the exception of a user who makes continually-reverted edits to the article, this article is in-the-main, stable. By this I mean there are continual edits around the edges of the article, but there are no sizeable reversions, additions or removals. A team of interested Wikipedians is monitoring the page and directly contention to the talk page, where consensus is reached for change.
- No problems with images.
In consideration of the above, I am promoting this article to GA status and congratulate the contributors for their well-written article. Kindly, LT910001 ( talk) 01:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- All right!!! Congratulations to all of the editors who helped make this article what it is today, especially Sb101. And thank you, LT910001, for doing a great job with this extended GA review process. This is quite an accomplishment. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 01:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, LT910001 and Prototime. Sorry for my recent absence - just been swamped with some work of mine, unfortunately. I do intent to return shortly to help maintain the page - I already noticed some changes I want to make to the Public Opinion section, for example - and close down a few of the edits that we were in the middle of, though I suspect Prototime has dealt with most of them. This month has been (and still is) just hectic for me but I'm hoping to enough time by Friday to read over/edit the remaining things so we can close/format them (like 'Lede + Provisions Done').
They shouldn't, however, upset the article new status. =D I really appreciate the kind words from people. But obviously a lot of people (far too many to mention) have put a lot of work into getting this far and maintaining it. In particular, though, thank you LT910001 and Prototime for your work on the review, and also to DrFleischman and George Orwell III who have done a great job maintaining the page! Great work. =) Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 12:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
(Redirected from
Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/GA1)
GA Review 1
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 03:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hidden sections are outdated. Scroll down for most recent updates.
| Read comments |
|---|
Hello, I haven't done many GA reviews so I'll just leave some thoughts about this article and get this process started.
All right, I'm going to stop there. This article is too long and I find myself glazing over sections because the prose is not tight enough. By this I mean there are numerous example where a sentence is used where a word could do. This article should have sections split:
Overall I find this article an extremely thorough analysis, clearly with a lot of work put into it, that needs some slight tweaking to become a GA. In the meantime I'm going to upgrade this article to B class. I hope that this review can get the ball rolling on some other reviews, too. Kind Regards, LT90001 ( talk) 03:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Discussion
| Read comments |
|---|
Hi there! Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I need to let you know that I'm about to shoot off and can't reply again for at least 24 hours, but I ought to leave a few quick comments:
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Length. Yep, definitely long. It almost certainly can be made more concise (such as the formatting clean up and prose you've mentioned), but I think most content can't justifiably be deleted; it's simply a complex topic, and whilst we need to ensure WP:Summary, comprehensiveness pushes in the other direction. Re: WP:SIZERULE "These rules of thumb only apply to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." I will try and find out the prose size vs the mark-up size (300kb) asap, but do feel it fair to emphasize that rules of thumb can be violated if required to provide a comprehensive summary, which is my intent?
Prose. Definitely agree (can't promise I'll agree with every proposed change - namely the 'consists of' > 'arose from' - but at a glance I'm happy with most everything else cited) - will have to address when I get back. Although (as much as I appreciate the offer), if I and other editors work on it we'd avoid potential conflict of interest for reviewers - not sure how that works, but thought I'd mention it. Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 13:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Parenthesized comments. Perhaps some we can/should go over some, but generally I felt this was correct: e.g. Olympia Snowe's retirement isn't the same subject as the topic of the paragraph in which its included but it is related, interesting to readers, and can't really be included elsewhere (given the appropriate context). But for others, perhaps I could just remove the parentheses from, say, the Clinton/SCHIP example? Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Citations. For some uncited info, I thought wikilink to the program was adequate instead of a reference? e.g. Clinton/SCHIP link, Gruber/Gruber's page (Otherwise I can just copy a ref from those pages, but as I say, I thought wikilink for those kind of tangential things was/is sufficient). And I have been meaning to edit the page to make the citations complete and consistent. Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, look forward to hearing back from you (and I will get started on those edits asap). Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC) |
Update 1
| Read comments |
|---|
Hey guys. I just thought I'd leave a note about what I intend to do to improve the quality of the article:
|
MOS issues
| Read comments |
|---|
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Hi There!
Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Update 2
| Read comments |
|---|
|
Right. I'm going to have to write a bit of a longer response here. Firstly, we're both eager to get this article up to GA class. However in the interests of getting along well with fellow Wikipedians it might be good to show some level of amenability to DocJames/JMH649's comments, even if you're not going to change too much. Secondly, I can't remember if I have notified you or not, but I have earlier placed a comment on WikiMed here requesting some more comments. I did this because of the advice in Reviewing good articles that one should get a second opinion on a point of dispute, namely that the article is too long. I'd rather get some second opinions and build consensus on this point of difference rather than stake my entire review around it. On that note, I have copied and pasted the text of the article into my sandbox and it's 130kb there. The kilobyte count is a little immaterial really; having review other articles, and in light of the comments above about length and number of references (related to length) I think there is consensus that irregardless of the kilobyte count, this article is too long. Moreover, I genuinely think that the effective provisions section is below the overall quality of the article. It means that the article doesn't match the "summary style" criteria of a good article (point 3 on Good article criteria) and it is very hard to more-thoroughly review an article that's so long. You can definitely use {{Seealso|x}} or {{Main|x}} to refer to a second article whilst preserving some content. Without these changes I think there is consensus that this article can't be promoted to GA status. The fact you've added a small table of contents implies you've also given some thought to how long the article is. It's very tempting to want to put everything in one article, especially when all the information is so crucial. Unfortunately that's not always possible, and perhaps if you think of articles as sections rather than standalone chapters in a book it will make the transfer easier. The number of references will also decrease if this content is transferred to another article. Moving the content will also improve the focus, decrease need for illustrations, and relocate the troublesome word/table and overflow image (the comments above). As it is, without this change, despite it's many good attributes, this article can't be promoted to GA status. LT90001 ( talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Update 3
| Read comments |
|---|
|
Ok, so I feel like I've taken a good crack at addressing the length - moving content/prose tightening. I'll definitely keep looking over it myself, but I'd appreciate some secondary input at this point: a fresh set of eyes may see room for improvement that I might be missing. (Also, re: Prototime, whilst I am quite in favor of an overview of provisions, if anyone's got thoughts on a better way to do that section - I dunno if a table or anything would make it more readable - I'd love to hear it because I'm having trouble thinking of something there). P.S. Re: Overview - I think it's small enough that it could stay as bullet points, but it's more of a 'if this can be done better' kind of deal (as opposed to 'this needs to be done better'). Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 18:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
On a separate style-related note, I wanted to mention that this article appears to have too many wikilinks. For instance, I've counted the number of times that the NFIB v. Sebelius article is linked to in this article as six. Per WP:OVERLINK, generally something should be wikilinked to only in the lead and the first time it appears in the content below the lead (infoboxes/footnotes excepted). I'm not particularly a stickler for that rule where it seems helpful to include an additional wikilink or two beyond that, but when I read this article, I do find the number (and size) of blue links a bit distracting. It also may be helpful to reduce the number of words in piped links, as a few of them contain rather large phrases that are linked. I'm happy to help with this, but I wanted to mention it here first (as a few removals may be judgment calls). – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 04:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
On second blush looking much better! Some thoughts:
To leave you with two positive things about the article, the attribution style is very good - always starting with "According to (x), ...". I think that's wise for an article like this! And lastly, I'll point our that that the Good article review criteria ( WP:GACR are not as strict as the featured article review criteria and a GA candidate doesn't have to adhere to the manual of style completely. ( Wikipedia:GACR#Notes) LT90001 ( talk) 07:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Update 4
| Read comments |
|---|
|
Let's have a review where this article's at in terms of the Good Article Criteria ( WP:GACR):
At this stage, I'd like to note that the advised normal duration is a week ( WP:GAN/I). In this light I'm going to put this review on hold ( GAN#hold). I think it might benefit the article, the reviewer (that's me!) and the review if we slow this process down a little. I can see this article making GA, but in the medium-term, and I don't think there are any 'easy fixes' that can get the citation issue worked out in the near-to-short term. If you're a participant at any active Wikiprojects, an extra set of hands helping do-up this article might help tighten the prose and citations. I'll drop in every few days, and other reviewers are welcome to leave comments on this review during this period. LT90001 ( talk) 08:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I think with an article as vast as this it must be quite a lot to do as a one-man show, so I support the inclusion of some extra editors to get some new eyes on the job. LT90001 ( talk) 11:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is looking much better and the prose size is significantly down to 85k of readable text and 'only' 31 full page views from top to bottom of article (stopping @ references), including contents and those two huge pictures (I'm only using this as a metric to indicate how much the article as changed). I'll start with a full review later today. LT90001 ( talk) 00:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
This article is too big to chew off at a single time, so I'll review in chunks. LT90001 ( talk)
Lede + Provisions
Lede + Provisions
Done |
|---|
|
Legislative History
Legislative History
Done |
|---|
|
Public policy
Change in number of uninsured
Change in number of uninsured
Done |
|---|
|
Insurance Coverage
- Moved to preceding subsection, Fixed Suggest topic sentence = "The ACA has two primary mechanisms for increasing insurance coverage: increasing the coverage of Medicare, and creating state-based 'insurance exchanges'", as it is a little confusing what the two mechanisms are at the moment. You can then alter the paragraph accordingly.
- The paragraphs "The insurance exchanges are a method... " and "The aforementioned regulations ..." could do with some citation bundling, it is difficult to read with so many citations.
- Question: I managed to get a few but not a lot of ones from the same author to bundle; although hopefully some of the editors have made it more readable regardless.
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's looking better, but there's still an issue where citations interrupt sentences. To get rid of this, I suggest:
- and inflation)[138] through regulations:[139][89]. Group these three citations, and start a new sentence after "through regulations."
- "state exchanges[143] to" move this citation to end of sentence.
- It's looking better, but there's still an issue where citations interrupt sentences. To get rid of this, I suggest:
- Some intrawiki links could be trimmed from these two paragraphs. These include the two links to "death spiral", two links to "adverse selection" and "Congressional Budget Office", which is surely linked elsewhere.
- Question: I realize it's unusual, but I thought they were justified: For the CBO, it hadn't been linked in that subsection and since I was only referring to it by acronym I thought it best to hedge bets for the reader. For the other two, the problem is that since you had the concepts are only being alluded and then referenced, I thought it made sense to reference them both - that way readers could realize and follow a link to an alluded concept and not be mystified by the lack of link to the concept once referred if they didn't check the former?
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- I see your point. As a commentator overtly makes the link to "death spiral" I don't think there's a need for the implicit link. Fair enough for CBO; this is a long article and readers might not get to the other links. Some of the allusions (for example 'free-rider problem') are actually quite illuminating. I think in order to reduce the wikilink load and enhance readability it would be best to remove the second reference to "adverse selection," which is more oblique and already alluded to anyway. LT90001 ( talk) 01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have mentioned below some long sentences which could be split up for readability purposes.
Specific suggestions:
- Fixed "fill out a form to the government that will determine their eligibility for subsidies"... suggest add "fill out a form that will be used to..." for clarity
- Fixed? For neutrality, suggest change from "( contrary to some rumous" -> "Although there has been some controversy, Members of congress..." and remove parenthesis.
- Fixed Suggest remove "etc." as it is not very encyclopedic. There might be more reasons but I'm confident you've listed the main ones.
- "And price regulations " -> "Price regulations"
- Question: I really think that the 'And' is necessary to signal the end of the list (of ways to make it affordable - subsidies, competition, price regulations)?
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed "The aforementioned regulations " -> "These regulations" (aforementioned is a little too technical)
- Fixed? New sentence "enrollment,[129][130] without which" -> "Without this, "
- "and the limits on open enrollment" not quite sure what this means
- Fixed? For readability, suggest flip sentence to be: "Without this, a vicious cycle could occur, in which ..." and new sentence "This could result in insurance death spirals."
- Do you mean the failure to enroll penalty: "six million will pay the penalty in 2016.[154][155] "?
- Fixed For readability, suggest split "Under the law, setting-up an exchange..." into 2-3 sentences.
- Fixed "discretion; and " -> "discretion (comma) and"
- Fixed Consider integrating parenthesis into text and starting a new sentence here: "functions), whereas "
Change in insurance standards
Change in insurance standards
Done |
|---|
|
I will more-fully review this section in several days' time. Would it be possible for you to run your eyes over the paragraphs, particularly paragraphs 2 and 3, and decrease the intensity of the technical language? For example, "The analysis forecasts that by 2016, for the non-group market comprising 17% of the market, premiums per person would increase by 10 to 13% but that over half of these insureds would receive subsidies that would decrease the premium paid to "well below" premiums charged under current law. " For the purposes of readability, I would also request that would add a topic sentence to paragraphs 2, 4 and 6, as I find it a little confusing to work out how they fit into the overall section given the technical language. Sorry, I am just a meek medical reviewer! Kindly, LT90001 ( talk) 09:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to do this - apologies for not having done so sooner; as you may have noticed, it got busy here recently, but things seem to have settled done so I've been able to get back to resolving the issues you've been highlighting. But I won't do that tonight after having worked on the rest (Sorry, I need sleep - I'm only human! =P) =) Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 15:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, I'll await your changes before I get to this section. I'm aware of the discussions on the article and admire your perseverance and dedication in improving this article. LT90001 ( talk) 01:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
| Edit Request (Resolved) |
|---|
Done! =) Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 02:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
Feedback
- Much easier to read.
- For readability suggest replace "individual market" as "market for individuals" and then put in brackets for small and large groups the % of the market, eg: "the market for indivduals would comprise 17% of the total health insurance market... the market for small groups (17% of the market)..." and so on.
- Sentence "The bulk of the savings were in reduced premiums " is uncited
Healthcare cost inflation
Having read the section on the federal deficit below this section, would it make more sense to move most of the content here? As it is the content is quite similar.
The following should be changed as it could be constued as NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE:
- The two quotes from Jonathan Cohn and Joanathan Gruber. These should be paraphrased in text: for example, "The CBO estimate has been criticised as failing to take into account..."
The following are small grammatical gripes:
- Here: "requires numerous pilot programs and demonstrations that may affect healthcare costs", "requires" is an intransitive verb and needs an object ("requires... to")
Other comments include:
- This list: "Several studies have attempted to explain the reduction in the rate of annual increase. Reasons " and the paragraph below is a off-topic, as it appears to be talking about reasons that healthcare cost inflation has not increased in the period 2002-2009, whereas the section and article relate to the PPACA. If you retain, I suggest cut it by at least a paragraph and alter to explain why this is relevant.
- The two images are too big. I suggest either remove one (the first image most likely, as this graph simply shows healthcare costs rising with respect to GDP, which is expressed in the text), or put them as thumbnails with a caption along the lines of "Rising healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP, 2000-2011 (click to view larger image)", so that readers still know that the full image exists, but so that the images don't stand out like sore thumbs in this article.
- The phrase about having a track record of underestimating is repeated in the section on "federal deficit"; suggest you delete here and retain there.
Federal deficit
A good mix of opinions.
The following are small grammatical fixes:
- Fixed "total outlays (expenditure) and "total receipts (revenue), maybe use the intrawikilinking to remove this paraphrasing, it is odd to see an article paraphrase itself.
- Fixed "on the ACA, which enabled " -> "that enabled" (without comma preceding)
- Fixed? "period (because " suggest integrate into text: "(comma) because..."
- Fixed Suggest reword "editors Noam Scheiber (an economist) and Jonathan Cohn (a healthcare policy analyst), " to "editors Noam Scheiber and Jonathan Cohn" with no introduction (as they have been introduced already); if retain introduction, suggest integrate into text, eg. "editors economist Noan Scheiber and health-care policy analyst Jonathan Cohn"
Other notes include:
- Fixed This paragraph "found to be overpaid (relative to government Medicare); and reductions in Medicare reimbursements to hospitals that do not meet standards of efficiency and care." is uncited.
- ✗ Suggest reword "- omitting its cost from the ACA is no different than omitting the cost of the Bush tax cuts" to a passive voice, such as "However, it has been argued that not including ... is no different to..."
-
Note: I have wondered whether a different example should be used, or whether the sentence is equally understandable with a generic "no different than omitting the cost of any other law" (I thought 'no'). However, the suggested reword "it has been argued" implies a degree of ambiguity whereas the intent of the sentence is to address a common misunderstanding. That's why I included the CBO letter that explicitly notes that it's looking at the cumulative effect of two bills, as requested by Paul Ryan, even though they are different + the more plain language source (Chait) and external analysts (CBPP) to verify. Given that the cost of the doc fix would remain even if the ACA were repealed, I feel any ambiguity is too misleading.
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
-
- Image's caption " CBO: Deficit reduction under ACA; the "bump“ is a little unclear. Suggest reword and cite the CBO heritage. For example, "Deficit reduction under the PPACA [cit]". Also, this might benefit from a sentence in text explaining healthcare costs will go up before they go down (which I assume is the function of this image)
-
Note: I added the citation but I'd prefer to keep ACA>PPACA, it's consistent with the article and with the CBO i.e. the title in the image + they, as I read it, use 'ACA' to refer to the 'PPACA as amended (by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Bill, subsequent related judicial decisions, statutory changes, and administrative actions)' -
See footnote #1.
- Question: Actually, the main purpose of including image was to have a visual aide to easily show that the CBO estimates net-deficit reduction (even after the coverage expansion starts); the reason I added the 'bump' text to the citation is to make sure that any readers wondering why the deficit reduction is not uniform in the first ten years is because of the one-off expansion of coverage. I thought "The CBO separately noted that while most of the spending provisions do not begin until 2014, revenue will still exceed spending in those subsequent years." was sufficient?
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- From what I understand and you have said, this image has been included to show the impact of the ACA on the US budget (and thus the debt). So a clearer title might be "CBO: heathcare budget impact of the ACA 2010-22. The 2015-18 inflection reflects the initial expansion of healthcare coverage." LT90001 ( talk) 08:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Sorry, one more:
- "commonly heard " -> "commonly-heard" or just "common"
Employer mandate and part-time working hours
Citations
- Fixed This assertion "stay in place." is uncited.
- "As of yet, however, only a small percent of companies have shifted their workforce towards more part-time hours (4% in a survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis).[254]" This is a primary source and I am not sure that the FRB of Minneapolis is representative of the entire country.
- Question:
The FRBM study was conducted within the 9th district (out of the
12 Federal Reserve Bank system districts); which covers MT, ND, SD, MN, and parts of WI and MI. That said, it may be the study is not representative. Although I've been meaning to read several articles, when I have some free time, which might give me something to add; the problem is that there seem to have been few studies providing hard data on the issue, so this is one of the few pieces of evidence we actually have, so I thought it better to include it along with context and evidence provided by the other sources?
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 11:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is a guideline for medical articles ( WP:MEDRS). This study would be called a "primary study" and we actively try and avoid using these, because the results can be easily misinterpreted or distorted, can be specific to the area or group that was studied, and may simply be the result of statistical variation. So I think it might be best to remove this study whilst we await the release of results from a larger secondary study. LT90001 ( talk) 08:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Workers who do not receive insurance from an employer plan will still be able to purchase insurance on the exchanges." is uncited.
- Question: I included this mainly to clarify for any unsure readers, but the substance itself seems well established from both the 'change in number of uninsured' and 'insurance exchanges...' sections - I figured with those (well-referenced) preceding sections, this sentence didn't need a citation as it would be unlikely to be challenged? (I have none-the-less copied one over).
Sb101 (
talk|
contribs) 11:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed? "law.[262][263][264][265][247] " has six citations (two are bundled); suggest you remove 2-3.
Grammar & readability:
- Fixed Suggest remove "and the employer mandate was a part of this attempt" as meaning is clear from position in paragraph.
- Fixed Suggest move "(44% of the total population) " to after the 54% statistic for consistency and readability
- Fixed? "situation; however " new sentence -> "situation. However, "
- Fixed "medically related " -> "medically-related"
- Fixed "employer’s " -> "employers(apostrophe)"
- Fixed "political rationale of " -> "rationale for"
Other:
- Fixed This sentence seems a little off-topic: "(At the same time, though, some analysts ... rather than using the 50-employee and 30-hour cut-offs).[253][262]" ; if retain, suggest reword to "Some analysts have suggested an alternate 'pay or play' system..." Either way, this entire sentence shouldn't be in parentheses.
- (Update note: I will go over the 'Healthcare cost inflation,' 'MOS issues,' and remaining 'Insurance Coverage' bits asap (but no more tonight) whilst I await your replies/reviews of other sections.) Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 11:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I will stop here, review "political" in one chunk, and "opposition and resistance" in another chunk.
- Virginia is a Commonwealth, not a State per se. As in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the, "State of Virginia" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmcm ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
More MOS issues
Also, there may be too many external links. I'm not sure the NYT and WSJ topic pages are necessary, and the article from the Atlantic seems a bit random (there are hundreds of magazine articles on the subject; why is this the most relevant?) -- Ypnypn ( talk) 14:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Political
Right! Getting to the end of the review. I've reviewed the two sections and lede as well. LT90001 ( talk) 08:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Public opinion
- "Polls indicate" -> "US polls indicate"
- The Reuters-Ipsos poll results, as mentioned earlier, are out of place in bullet form. I feel that this impacts on readability and gives undue weight to a particular source. However, I understand that this is provided as an example of US public opinion illustrating what has been noted in the first and second paragraphs. However, in-text it is out of place. Some suggestions might be to include it in a quote or table stucture.
- The last two items should not be bulleted (other polls... other specific ideas...) as these weren't from the R-I poll. This may fix the readability concerns above, as the list would then be much shorter.
- Style-related only: (52%–34%) normally reported small-> big (34-52%)
- Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that when a question is presented for/against, the results are reported "for -> against" and not "big -> small". I'm certain that's how bill vote totals in legislatures are stylized, but I'm not entirely sure that this applies to opinion poll results, so I could be wrong. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 23:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Obamacare
- "for the uninsured (comma) according to "
- "without having government take over healthcare (question mark)'. " Although have seen both styles used in nested quotes
- "most common colloquial term to " -> "term used to"
- "Stuart Seidel, NPR's managing editor, said that the term "seems to be straddling somewhere between being a politically-charged term and an accepted part of the vernacular." is uncited.
Myths
- "Independent Payment Advisory Board " suggest wikilink
- "advance(hyphen)care ". Wikilink?
- I have moved the opinion by Ypnypn here:
- The section titled "Myths" violates
WP:WTW: "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." --
Ypnypn (
talk) 13:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ypnypn points out that "myth" is a "contentious label" ( WP:LABEL) and a "word to watch" ( WP:WTW). Such words "should be used with care...". However, it is also noted that the WP:WTW policy "should not be applied rigidly" and "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia" (quotes taken from WP:WTW). I believe that here the use of the word "myth" falls within the OED definition (" a widely held but false belief or idea") and, specifically, that the scholarly context has been established, so it is reasonable to use it. As I am quoting from the policy, to ensure that I am not selectively paraphrasing or misinterpreting the policy, consult it directly here: WP:WTW. LT90001 ( talk) 09:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the "formal use of the term" means a myth as in mythology (i.e. a traditional story, usually involving gods or other supernatural things). For example, Genesis creation narrative is described as a creation myth. The OED definition is the "informal sense", probably. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 12:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- The section titled "Myths" violates
WP:WTW: "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." --
Ypnypn (
talk) 13:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Opposition and resistance
- Legal challenges great to see a child article.
State rejections of Medicaid expansion
- "of the poverty level " suggest remove wikilink from "the"
- "However, the Supreme Court ruling created the potential... and the subsidy eligibility threshold" contains assertions that should have adjacent citations, rather than grouped at the end.
- "below 100% of the poverty line" suggest remove "100%", as this is implied when you say "below the poverty line"
Noncooperation
- suggest rename to "Non-cooperation" (OED spelling)
- "required by federal law to functioning " -> "to the functioning of..."
Congressional opposition and government shutdown
- contains a "citation needed"
- suggest de-wikilink "APAB" as you have wikilinked it above.
Repeal efforts
- "None of the bills were considered by either body." is uncited
- I simply removed this sentence. It seems like more trouble than its worth to find a source saying that these two specific bills, out of the many repeal efforts, were not considered by either body. The more important point is that these bills were the first repeal bills to be proposed (and clearly they failed). – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 00:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Job consequences of repeal
- "once they have health insurance outside of their jobs." is uncited (although I would hesitate to guess it is covered by the in-sentence citation).
Re-review of Lede
Having now reviewed the entire article I will re-review the lede:
- The lede covers the law, its provisions and challenges.
- Using citations in the lead, whilst not always recommended stylistically, is a wise choice considering the contentious nature of the article.
Conclusion
Prototime, thanks so much for helping out. I will shortly conclude this review, but there's one outstanding issue, and that's the two very large images. I suggest that you put them in a gallery format with labels, that allows users to click to view more, or put them in captioned images. The current state is not readable and preventing nomination. I would welcome any of your thoughts, this issue has previously been discussed by Sb101 and myself in this review. LT910001 ( talk) 00:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to help, LT910001. I've turned the images into thumbnails with captions; let me know if they still need some work. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 01:35, 20 October 2013 (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. | Very |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes. |
| 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. | Yes, see comments below. |
|
|
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. | Yes, see comments below. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes, see comments below. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | See comments below. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | See comments below. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | See comments below. |
| 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. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | A solid article. Well done. |
Comments
Will be updated shortly, when the issue with images is resolved. LT910001 ( talk) 01:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I am promoting this article to GA status and commend the primary nominator, Sb101, on their continued and persistent improvement to the article. This nomination has been a very long process with extensive discussion on numerous points, and has been thoroughly looked-over by myself and several other reviewers. I would strongly encourage any commentator to read the above discussions before offering commentary on this review. I will note some particular points with regard to this article for future reviewers or readers of this review:
- Firstly, I would like to (again) commend the primary nominee, Sb101, who's been working tirelessly on the article's talk page and on this review. And thanks to Prototime for taking over at the last minute.
- I find this article to be readable and concise. This issue of length has been raised above, and as discussed, considering the contentious and broad nature of the issue covered, I feel that the current length is adequately broad without being excessively specific. This is warranted to give adequate coverage to each portion of the article.
- This article contains numerous citations. There is a risk of citation overload. However, at the current stage, and considering the contentious nature of the article, I think this is a reasonable and suitable choice.
- Neutrality. This article receives a large view count (9 million plus per year) and in society at-large, there is a notable debate. I find the article provides a NPOV analysis and portrayal of the bill, its provisions and history, whilst acknowledging the debate and the primary reasons for it.
- Stability. With the exception of a user who makes continually-reverted edits to the article, this article is in-the-main, stable. By this I mean there are continual edits around the edges of the article, but there are no sizeable reversions, additions or removals. A team of interested Wikipedians is monitoring the page and directly contention to the talk page, where consensus is reached for change.
- No problems with images.
In consideration of the above, I am promoting this article to GA status and congratulate the contributors for their well-written article. Kindly, LT910001 ( talk) 01:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- All right!!! Congratulations to all of the editors who helped make this article what it is today, especially Sb101. And thank you, LT910001, for doing a great job with this extended GA review process. This is quite an accomplishment. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 01:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, LT910001 and Prototime. Sorry for my recent absence - just been swamped with some work of mine, unfortunately. I do intent to return shortly to help maintain the page - I already noticed some changes I want to make to the Public Opinion section, for example - and close down a few of the edits that we were in the middle of, though I suspect Prototime has dealt with most of them. This month has been (and still is) just hectic for me but I'm hoping to enough time by Friday to read over/edit the remaining things so we can close/format them (like 'Lede + Provisions Done').
They shouldn't, however, upset the article new status. =D I really appreciate the kind words from people. But obviously a lot of people (far too many to mention) have put a lot of work into getting this far and maintaining it. In particular, though, thank you LT910001 and Prototime for your work on the review, and also to DrFleischman and George Orwell III who have done a great job maintaining the page! Great work. =) Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 12:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)