User talk:RetiredRichard/sandbox

Remove references to 'you/your' (who?) from the article everywhere (as in "Income Drawdown allows you to take income...", "that you generally need a substantial fund...", "a bespoke solution for your retirement objectives" etc) and replace with 'investors/savers/retirees' or whatever appropriate.

"IFAs" - it's better to use full "independent financial advisers" throughout the article, linking the term to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Financial_Adviser

This part: "It is a widely held belief that you generally need a substantial fund value to take income drawdown[3] . Whilst it is true that many pension providers specify minimum Pension savings values for Income Drawdown, many IFAs specialising in pensions are now considering it for all clients as they approach pension age. Income Drawdown can be used in conjunction with annuity purchases to give a bespoke solution for your retirement objectives [4]."

"It is a widely held belief..." - how do we know that it is? Need sources or rephrase. "Whilst it is true that many pension providers specify minimum Pension savings values for Income Drawdown, many IFAs specialising in pensions are now considering it for all clients as they approach pension age" - "whilst it is true" part is better avoided; if there minimum savings values in many(?) cases, it's better to state it as such. "many IFAs specialising in pensions are now considering it" - very little informational value, consider rephrasing. "Income Drawdown can be used in conjunction with annuity purchases to give a bespoke solution for your retirement objectives" - "bespoke solution", "your retirement objectives" sound like a sales copy.

"Capped v. Flexible Drawdown" - probably better to change to "Types of income drawdown"

"You cannot do it later" - this is an encyclopaedia article, there is no need to issue warnings here so it's unnecessary to bold.

"This article is intended to be of general interest and not specific advice in any individual circumstance" - completely unnecessary sentence in an encyclopaedia article

"For advice on your personal circumstances you need to go to a regulated IFA. The permutations are such that there is no substitute for having advice from an expert, who knows you precise personal circumstances. So for example you can use part of your pension savings to buy an annuity and put part into income drawdown. You can also split some or all of your pension savings, so you create separate sub-funds, which you then put into payment at different times. You can add to your pension drawdown fund... ...But if you are considering taking your drawdown pension as flexible drawdown you will need to consider the tax consequences if you wish to continue making contributions" - most of this needs to be changed or left out.

"Contrast this with" - instead of addressing a reader in this way it would be better to be factual by using something like "as opposed to"

"Annuity or Income drawdown?" - change the title from a question.

"Only an IFA can advise you, after investigating your personal circumstances, whether you will be better off with an annuity or income drawdown or a combination. But the following are general points based on the differences between income drawdown and annuities" - unnecessary.

"Once in Income Drawdown, you can switch to an annuity at a later point." - no need to highlight this. "SIPP" - use full term linking to appropriate wikipedia page (if available)