Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FairTax/archive1

FairTax
I think this article has reached FA quality. In the words of the GA reviewer, "This article is a nice one to read and is fully detailed with a bit of math here and there, well-balanced and has a nice prose." Since then, we've continued to work on it getting it ready for FA and I think it is there. The article has had several peer reviews and has been in work for 2 years. Morphh 01:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - quotes should not be in italics, per the MoS. --Peta 01:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrected - Thanks, Morphh 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Please provide inline citations. The first paragraph I glanced upon was:
 * In the period before the FairTax is implemented, it would create a strong incentive for individuals to buy goods without the sales tax using credit. After the FairTax is in effect, the credit could be paid off using untaxed payroll. Opponents of the FairTax worry it could exacerbate an existing consumer debt problem. On the other hand, proponents of the FairTax note that this effect will also allow individuals to pay off all their existing (post-FairTax) debt quicker.
 * On questions of taxation, readers need to be certain the article is neutral. Inline citations backing up statements are essential. Sandy 03:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you found one of the few that don't have sources. :-) Much of this paragraph is from information gained through the article.  It just points out the use of credit in the situation.  I'll add a ref to this one and check for any others that could use one. Morphh 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you hate it when that happens? :) I'll look again tomorrow.  Sandy 04:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object Dispassionate attention should be given to the proposal's reception in Congress - the advocates for this emphasize how many sponsors it has, but what about its reception in the tax-writings committees(I note that there is citation to a rebuttal to a Joint Committee on Taxation report but not a citation to or discussion of the report itself) and on the floor of the House (has the bill gotten there? what were the votes?).  There are a number of weak citations to advocates and to web sites (including some of the opposing viewpoints - is a website for "Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership" really the best place to find economic policy expertise?), and attention is needed to making sure the best citations for the discussion are used. Similarly, the tendancy to lead with the supporter's positions and treat objections as secondary or to insert objections only with rebuttal lends a very one-sided tone to the page; pro and con should be more clearly balanced. Relegating discussion of talk show host Boortz to the last paragraph leaves earlier references to him, including the book cover used as the main image, hanging. I think this page needs a careful and thorough review by an impartial editor with some knowledge of tax law or economics; it is going to be difficult for editors who are clearly supporters to neutralize the tone. Sam 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The bill has not made it to the floor for a vote, so it is not known what the overall reception in congress is. The statements on cosponsorship are easy to see, compare, and are factual - I'm not sure where the POV is in that regard.  The reviews by the JCT were not the FairTax legislation but could be added in the legislative section as a comparative NRST plan.  The article tends to lead with supporter claims as the article is mainly based on the legislation.  It is best to outline what the legislation states or predicted benefits and then describe challenges to the claim.  I think it is also important that both sides be allowed to express their POV and this may be in the form of a rebuttal to the criticism.  There are at least 4 sections that lead with criticism and most lead with a neutral description based on the legislation - such as defining the rate as 23%.  Many times a critism is not based on the legislation as written but considerations if things were changed.  These discussions should be treated after what the plan actually is based on in the legislation.  It is the most well balanced piece on the topic that I have ever seen.  Perhaps the "Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership" doesn't sound like a great source but they wrote a good critique paper.  I'll try to find something better for that section.  I'll also try to add a bit more on Boortz earlier in the article.  The book is co-authored by John Linder (the author of the legislation).  I'm not sure discussing Boortz in detail earlier will add much value to the article.  It is not his plan, he just wrote about it.  Morphh 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam's analysis delves into some of the concerns I have. I will be hesitant to support until I am thoroughly convinced this article is impartial.  One thing that might help is to inline cite extensively, so it is possible for reviewers to better understand sourcing behind every statement.  I haven't opposed FA, but I will really need to be convinced to support, considering the potential for POV.  I'll be looking for very strong, impartial sources, or a good balance if sources are less than impartial.  Sandy 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult to find impartial sources. The Wikipedia article has become the impartial source on the topic (I've heard this from both sides). Most sources are either for or against it and rarely describe the other POV.  Like many topics, there is also a lot of incorrect information out there on both sides.  It should be noted that many of what some would state as the "proponent" view and then a criticism is really stating the legislation and then an opposing view and in some cases a rebuttal.  Many of the statements are just outlining the facts of the bill.  We could easily add more references though it may look a bit messy.  We've tried to add them after anything that someone may question or if it provides additional details / information.  Morphh 18:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The difficulty of finding impartial sources is one reason why it is hard to write articles on developing policy issues, but I think it's one of those problems that all we can do is acknowledge it and then tackle it. I will mark up a couple of paragraphs to show you how I think tone could be changed to be more impartial. It will likely require a shift in emphasis (for example, gaining sponsors is quite exciting to an organization trying to get a bill moving, but in looking at the level of support this has at this point in time, I don't think that point quite compares to the point that the bill hasn't gotten out of committee in 6 years).  I will warn you that while I know quite a bit about taxes and tax policies, including different consumption tax programs, I know absolutely nothing about this particular proposal, so please forgive any inaccuracies - I am doing it more for a demonstration than for the substance of the changes.  Sam 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look, and note I have no investment in any particular language, so if you think anything is not neutral or something important was eliminated, please restore it. As I edited, one of the things that seemed to give this the greatest "advocacy" tone was the presence of lists of not terribly notable supporters (e.g., truly minor Presidential candidates, Libertarian party) without noting opponents; since this is a Legislative History section, I focused on the current legislative leadership.  Has any of the Senate leadership taken a position on the bill? I also found some redundancy, and tried to pare for length and readability. But I think what I just did to one section needs to be done to the entire article. Sam 23:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the example. On the presence of the lists, I'll have to rethink this aspect.  Since the FairTax is such a major change to the tax system, the "status quo" is the norm.  Since this is an article about the FairTax, it seemed to make sense to show the different areas that it has gained support.  It would seem odd to state those that prefer the current system or have not made any supporting statements.  It also showed some of the multi-party support - Rep, Dem, Lib.  I guess this could be a proponent view but it seems applicable.  I'd like to here other's thoughts in regard to this.  Thank you again for the assistance.  I'll work on this along with adding more cites.  Morphh 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added many more inline cites after this reveiw for reviewers to better understand sourcing behind statements. I've tried to use more neutral language in recent copyedits.  Morphh 02:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. This is poorly written, and it really matters here, because this is a subject that needs to be explained to non-experts in crystal-clear, easy-to-comprehend prose. Some economics journalists are very good at this. I have serious quibbles with almost every sentence. Let's look at the lead.
 * "While the FairTax replaces taxes like FICA, it does not remove or change any government funded programs such as Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid." Please remove "any". "Or" is probably better as "and".
 * "Any" was used as emphasis as some think the plan will alter social programs. I don't have a problem with removing it but it was intentional.  Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "The legislation would apply a 23% federal retail sales tax on the total transaction value of new retail goods and services purchases; consumers pay to the government 23 cents of every dollar spent (sometimes called tax inclusive)." Remove "total". What does "new" mean here? Remove as unnecessary? Most readers won't understand the term "tax inclusive", and I think that even US editors, who aren't so hot on hyphens, would insist on hyphenating it and the opposite term. You need "in other words, " after the semicoon, and I'd introduce tax-inclusive and -exclusive in a new sentence. Not well organised here.
 * The word "total" is important to the definition. "New" as in not "used".  A good must be "new" for it to be taxed - this is described in the article.  I didn't want use the intro as a place for defining all terms.  There is not enough room to do it and explain the rest of the article.  Some find the inclusive/exclusive terms more familiar so we included them.  They are further defined in the article.  I've seen both a dash used and without - I'll add it in if it is preferred.  Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "The assessed tax rate is 30% if the FairTax is added ..."—Perhaps "The assessed tax rate would be 30% if the FairTax were added ...". And since this, as far as I can see, is the revenue-neutral option, it should be made clear further up that the 23% is not the real rate proposed, or would be "in addition to current sales taxes". But try to keep it simple.
 * They are the same rate and both are revenue neutral. It is just a mater of math and what is used for the base.  The 23% is what is written in the legislation. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "However, this is a matter of dispute as some disagree as to the tax rate required for the FairTax to be revenue-neutral." This is not a good sentence. Try: "however, the tax-exclusive rate required for revenue-neutrality is disputed." Avoid "some", meaning "some people/economists/who?". Please consider using em dashes rather than hyphens as punctuation.
 * Sounds good - minus the exclusive term. More details are provided in the article. We were trying to make summary sentences and they could have been worded better.  Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Economists state goods and services contain embedded taxes from the current tax structure and compliance costs associated. Prices are expected to decrease prices after these costs are removed." Not all economists, surely (perhaps "many"?). "Believe that" or "contend that" would be better than "state". But hang on, aren't you stating the obvious here? I don't think you need to bring economists into it explicitly—just retain the reference. "In", not "from". The second sentence is garbled.
 * I don't know of any economists that state otherwise - I would say all but I get your point. Thanks for pointing out the second sentence - a sufficient length intro was just added and it seems we had a few copyedits to do.  Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "The effective tax rate for any household is variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebate checks"—Keep it in the conditional mood ("would be"), so the readers will understand the sense. It is, after all, a proposal, not current fact. Does "checks" refer to what non-US speakers call "cheques", i.e., slips of paper that say "pay this person this much"? If so, please reword, because it's ambiguous. Better to just remove it and retain "rebates".
 * Yes - though it can be electronic. I agree. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "The checks, paid in advance each month, would be meant to eliminate the taxation of each household’s purchase of necessities and can lower a household's effective rate to zero or a negative rate." Better: "Monthly payments in advance would compensate for the taxation on the purchase of necessities and would reduce the effective rate to ..." Is this the effective overall rate, or just the effective rate for necessities?
 * The effective rate is overall. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "distribution of taxation"—this is unclear. Do you mean "the allocation of the tax burden"?
 * Yes - this is the terminology that the economists use. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "The FairTax has predicted effects in the areas of tax burden visibility,..."—Better: "The FairTax would have ramifications for tax burden visibility,..."—I don't think you need to hedge here: no serious economist would say that it would have no effect on the items you list. "International business appeal" is vague. Rather than "black markets", which is narrower than what I think you mean, use "the cash economy". The reference to "the 16th amendment" will mean nothing to non-Americans, and probably to many Americans, too. A phrase or two explaining it?
 * Thanks - I'll work on this, however, I expect we'll need assistance. The intro is probably the best example.  A month ago, it was only two paragraphs but did not summarize the article.  So we expanded it and then it was too long.  I removed two paragraphs during FA nom.  We ended up with trying to summarize a long article in a few paragraphs and some pieces just didn't click.  Thanks again for your help in making this a better article. I'm reading your "How to" guide now and will work on copyedits this week.  Morphh 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs intensive collaboration that includes copy-editors who are unfamiliar with the text—even with the topic. Please don't just address the examples I've provided. Tony 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made large copyedits after Tony1's review to improve the writting. Morphh 02:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - per nom - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment graphics should be in SVG. eg Image:Effectiverate.jpg, Image:Fairtax-dollars.png, Image:Fairtax-percentile.png, Image:Stability.jpg and Image:Prebatechart.jpg. I would also consider whether the last graphic is necessary or would a summary do. WP 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Geezz - An oppose over graphic format.. how about a Comment? For one, the graphics are not vector based images so SVG is not applicable unless the images were completely recreated from scratch using a vector based image editor.  Second, the JPG files that could be in PNG format should only be converted if it reduces the file size without causing artifacts which PNG does not in these images.  I can convert them but it will produce an increase in file size and offer no improvement in quality.  Third, is this even a criteria for FA? Morphh 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't a criteria, see Procellariidae above for an explanation of where the push for SVG came from. It would be useful to replace the images with SVG's, but work on the rest of the article first, I think.  --16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - I've made many changes to the article per the discussions above. Morphh 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)