Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation/Assessment

Priority scale
Per the reasons I left on Morphh's talk page I think how widespread the effect of a tax topic is and what it's impact has been should be the primary factors. Thus international and general tax topics would be higher priority than single country issues. I believe that's the best way to avoid systemic bias, and is where our priority should be. Otherwise having single country issues as top or high priority would put way too many topics in that category which should be reserved for only the most important. I think the only single country issues that should reach high priority are the Taxation in Canada type articles. The additional factor should be how likely are people that aren't accountants would want to see the article, that factor would tend to reduce the priority assigned to conceptual articles in favor of practical ones. The factors need to be balanced certainly. So in summary the three factors I propose for priority are 1) how widespread the effect is, 2) impact, and 3) the likelihood non specialists would read it. But of course, I'm open to other reasoning. - Taxman Talk 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While I think we should be conscious of systemic bias, I don't think this should be a large focus in the basis for priority. I think #3 is the most important as Wikipedia's first focus is for the normal reader and our efforts should be to make the best quality articles for those readers.  Since readers will likely migrate to major #1 & #2 articles, such will already be top priority.  However, other widespread effects may get little attention from users and thus should not be Top priority.  For example, Marginal tax rate & Effective tax rate are global concepts that are widespread but I don't think they should be Top priority. I think the way it is currently specified provides the best distribution.  I thought it would be overly bottom heavy the way it was.  This is not the same as a search engine or wikilink count, where all U.S. articles might get more attention.  I think we can evenly state the type of article regardless of country.  Taxation in Canada and Taxation in the United States have equal importance as readers from those countries would treat such as a priority.  I think such addresses systemic bias without prioritizing notable global articles higher then significant country articles.  I think we should look at it from the perspective of "each country" as appose to "no country".  So if I'm looking at "Taxation in Canada", I prioritize as if I'm a Canadian (what is the importance of this article to a Canadian reader?) instead of the idea that I'm not a Canadian (what is the importance of this article to the non-Canadian reader?).  Most readers are probably interested in their own country and major global concepts - I think we need to keep this in mind in our prioritization.  Morphh (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok.. Since it was in some hybrid, I updated it so it made some sense (Scheme 2 listed below). I'll list the two thoughts below on how the priority should be defined.

What links here
While not the basis for priority, I thought this may be helpful in the assessment process. A bot ran through the What links here and this What links here count lists all WikiProject Taxation articles with the What links here count (minus talk space, wikipedia space, etc). Helpful for linking too - I didn't even know we had an article on Income tax in Iran (0 link count) - I'll be fixing that. Morphh  (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple WikiProjects
While applying priority and class levels to articles I noticed that several of these articles were under multiple wikiprojects. Of these sorts of articles the ones on cases like US Supreme Court decisions or Australian decisions stuck out. Giving such articles low priority was obvious because the articles were on the case rather than the law/tax. This also followed the instructions in the assessment scale. However, the class/quality assessment scale seemed a bit awkward because they were under multiple wikiprojects. These other wikiprojects focused on the precise topic of the article such as when a wikiproject concentrating on US Supreme Court decisions applied a class assessment on an article that is on a decision by the US Supreme Court.
 * 1) Provided that the article sufficiently discussed the tax aspects of case, should the article's class level under WP Tax match the other wikiprojects since they focus on the precise topic of the article? (preemption)
 * 2) Yes, the class level is a global quality criteria that should apply across the board to any wikipedia article. The quality is based on the article topic and has no additional weight with regard to a subject classification.  We're working to move these articles to GA and FA.  Morphh   (talk) 1:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Otherwise, should the article have an independent assessment as to class for WP Tax? (independent jurisdiction, limited to assessing the tax content)
 * No, if the article is already assessed, you can apply the same assessment to the WP Tax project without review or if you review and reassess the article to a higher or lower quality, you can change the class on all wikiprojects. Morphh   (talk) 1:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Should the NA class be applied?EECavazos (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) If it is an article, then no. NA should normally only be used for articles in the Wikipedia or template namespace.  Morphh   (talk) 1:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New C-class
I suppose we could amend this page to include the new C class unless there is some objection. The C class would help to identify and separate articles that are higher quality than start class but which would be stuck in start class until some other editors agree to increase the class. Such articles that have their assessments arrested are somewhat hidden among the other articles that are in the start class and belong there per their current state. The C class would also help identify the articles that are better than start class but have not yet made it to the B class and I should think that there should be a larger jump in quality between a start class and B class article because the B class article precedes the Good Article class. The C class would be a good segue in quality between the Start class and the B class articles.EECavazos (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to quickly reply since I'm watching but don't have time at the moment. Yes - I'll try to take a look at this and your other question today if possible.   Morphh   (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Amendment. Originally I thought any classification above Start class required the concurrence with other editors and maybe that was so,  but then changed when I was away from editing.  I see in the assement page that any one person may rate an article a B class article.  I suppose that negates my point about articles getting stuck it the start class when they should be classifed above.  However, I still assert that the C-class would be a good segue between Start Class and B-Class because B-Class is the classification just before Good Article class and so that should be quite a jump in quality between Good Article and B-class. I generally see a C class article including sections related to notability/controversy/impact and history while a B class article improves upon that by including inline citations on important assertions (a Good Article classification would require a more thorough treatment within sections related to notability/controversy/impact while providing more inline citations).  Although maybe I am being somewhat of a tightfist when it comes to classification.  I have seen a jump in B class articles, so maybe what I believe constitutes a C class article should instead be a B class article. EECavazos (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

is this a defunct page?
I apologize if I did something wrong by adding in a request, but I can't really tell. In the middle of the page it says essentially "put your request here" then at the end it says the page is only a record and should not be edited. I got here through clicking on a link in the quality rating of the article I sought review for (Starve the beast). Request assistance or advice. DanielM (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The project itself has slowed down quite a bit since its creation. So while not defunct, users are not as active in addressing such requests.  I'll try to take a look when I have time.  Morphh   (talk) 15:21, 08 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The project has been marked as semi-active but we are making efforts to revive it. Hawk Geminus  09:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)