Template:Did you know nominations/London fiscal surplus
- 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).
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
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 Only using 3 years old figures makes the article seem outdated.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)- 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
- QPQ done
Overall, a good article but a couple of issues that need resolving. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- @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. buidhe 21:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- 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
Good to go. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
