Wikipedia:Peer review/American Rescue Plan/archive1

American Rescue Plan


I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate it for GA-status before or after it is signed into law. It wouldn't hurt for feedback via the peer review page and I think this is a useful page for suggestions on how I can improve the article and have it ready for GA-class. Feel free to leave me any suggestions below. Thanks, AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback from Buidhe

 * AmericanRescuePlan2021 First, thanks for all your work on the article! Unfortunately, I don't think it's stable enough right now for GA assessment. There are many edits in the last few days and it's usually best to avoid nominations of very recent or ongoing events. It is best to wait a few months after the bill passes, and wait until it's no longer acutely in the news, for more stability. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So Buidhe, should I go ahead and request closure of the peer review and wait until it becomes law? —AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with peer review at this point but I would hold off on a GA nomination until the article has become more stable. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Buidhe, as I've said, once the bill is signed into law, I will nominate it for GA-status. I won't nominate it now because it is not ready for GA-status yet. I also would like to let you know that there is a discussion on the American Rescue Plan talk page about moving the article to American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Should I go ahead and request that the peer review is closed so that way it won't affect the process, or do you prefer to do a quick peer review of the article and give feedback on what I can do to improve the article while I wait for it to be signed into law? --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think you have to close the peer review until it's nominated for GA. Some thoughts:
 * Article is pretty short, it could be doubled or tripled in size without exceeding the recommended article size.
 * There are some grammar errors, such as "the bill doesn't received enough federal government funding"
 * "the bill doesn't received enough federal government funding" is fixed and ✅ --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Article will need to be updated substantially if/when the bill passes and its final provisions become known, as well as with actual economic impact
 * On the other hand, the article already does a pretty good job citing reliable sources such as reputable newspapers. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, I appreciate your feedback regarding how to improve the article. I won't nominate it for GA-status until after it is signed into law because it isn't ready for GA-status yet. I need more time before I nominate it for GA-status. I will follow your advice on how to improve the article. I will go ahead and request closure of this peer review since there is a discussion on the the American Rescue Plan talk page about moving the article to American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. I could and will request copyediting for the article and if it is improved, I will request a second peer review for the article if necessary. If I do request a second peer review, I will allow you to review it again. Again, thank you for the feedback. --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to close a peer review just because an article might move. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, I have a couple questions: I also would like to let you know that I will also request copyediting for the article if necessary. I will continue adding stuff to the article as the bill passes. --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk)
 * 1) if the article gets moved, will the peer review get moved as well?
 * 2) I have corrected the "the bill doesn't received enough federal government funding" grammar as you suggested. Do you have anymore suggestions on what grammar needs to be improved
 * 3) You said that the article is pretty short and that I should double or triple the size. Which areas of the article are you referring to?
 * 1) No. But it doesn't matter, the link should still work.
 * 2) I didn't closely read the entire article so I haven't identified any other specific grammar errors.
 * 3) The article size refers to the maximum preferable size for an article. Don't add irrelevant info just to pad it out but if there are more details important to understanding tho topic, they should be added. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)