Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/London fiscal surplus"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Joseph2302 (g2g) |
imported>Yoninah (to Prep 6) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | <includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk|</includeonly>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations from April 2020]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
| − | | | + | :''The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|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'''.'' |
| − | + | ||
| − | |2 | + | The result was: '''promoted''' by [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 01:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)<br /> |
{{DYK conditions}} | {{DYK conditions}} | ||
{{DYK header|London fiscal surplus}} | {{DYK header|London fiscal surplus}} | ||
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=London fiscal surplus|London fiscal surplus}} | {{DYK nompage links|nompage=London fiscal surplus|London fiscal surplus}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* ... that London '''[[London fiscal surplus|subsidized the rest of the UK]]''' by £38.6 billion in the 2016–17 fiscal year? <small>Source: https://www.scotfact.com/fiscal-transfers</small> | * ... that London '''[[London fiscal surplus|subsidized the rest of the UK]]''' by £38.6 billion in the 2016–17 fiscal year? <small>Source: https://www.scotfact.com/fiscal-transfers</small> | ||
:* ''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Malhotra]] | :* ''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Malhotra]] | ||
<small>Created by [[User:Buidhe|Buidhe]] ([[User talk:Buidhe|talk]]). Self-nominated at 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).</small> | <small>Created by [[User:Buidhe|Buidhe]] ([[User talk:Buidhe|talk]]). Self-nominated at 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).</small> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | :* [[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=☑]]<span style="display:none">Y</span | + | :* [[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=☑]]<span style="display:none">Y</span> 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 |
:* {{Question mark|10}} {{U|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) | :* {{Question mark|10}} {{U|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) | ||
:* {{Question mark|10}} 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 | :* {{Question mark|10}} 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 | ||
| − | :* [[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=☑]]<span style="display:none">Y</span | + | :* [[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=☑]]<span style="display:none">Y</span> QPQ done |
:* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] Overall, a good article but a couple of issues that need resolving. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC) | :* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] Overall, a good article but a couple of issues that need resolving. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC) | ||
::*{{ping|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]]. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">[[User:Buidhe|<b style="color: White">b</b>]][[User talk:Buidhe|<b style="color: White">uidh</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|<b style="color: White">e</b>]]</span> 21:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC) | ::*{{ping|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]]. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">[[User:Buidhe|<b style="color: White">b</b>]][[User talk:Buidhe|<b style="color: White">uidh</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|<b style="color: White">e</b>]]</span> 21:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC) | ||
| − | :::* [[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=☑]]<span style="display:none">Y</span | + | :::* [[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=☑]]<span style="display:none">Y</span> 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 |
| − | :::* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Good to go. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC) | + | :::* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Good to go. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)</div><includeonly>|}}</includeonly><!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
| − | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Latest revision as of 01:52, 2 June 2020
- 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)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
London fiscal surplus
- ... that London subsidized the rest of the UK by £38.6 billion in the 2016–17 fiscal year? Source: https://www.scotfact.com/fiscal-transfers
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).
- 20px 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
- Template:Question mark Template:U 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)
- Template:Question mark 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
- 20px QPQ done
- File:Symbol question.svg Overall, a good article but a couple of issues that need resolving. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Ping 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)
- 20px 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
- 16px Good to go. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)