Template:Did you know nominations/2013 United States federal budget
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PFHLai (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
2013 United States federal budget
[edit]- ... that the 2013 United States federal budget may impose a 23% cut on the defense budget due to the Budget Control Act of 2011, and that this could lead to a carrier battle group being eliminated?
- Reviewed: Colin Mawby
Created/expanded by Antony-22 (talk). Self nom at 04:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's new enough and long enough. I've made some changes to make it less wordy and smooth out my neutrality concerns. I've tagged a couple words as not specific enough to verify (they are also have neutrality issues, IMO). The 23% needs an inline. And I would strike the "and that this could lead to a carrier battle group being eliminated" from the hook as I don't think it is very relevant to the big picture of the subject or interesting. I still need to check for potential copyright violations. Jesanj (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)- And while checking for copyright violations in the first NYT and LAT sources, I noticed the LAT source "U.S. leaders strike debt deal to avoid default" is from the summer after sentences that analyze a fall event. That's impossible. Jesanj (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thorough review. I have made further revisions to deal with the issues you specified. Regarding the text citing the LA Times article, it only refers to the formation of the committee, and so is not anachronistic. For the hook, I think the part about the carrier group gives a more concrete idea of the effects of the cuts than having just the number, though it does lengthen the hook. I'm happy to leave it up to the discretion of the closing admin. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The 23% is sourced to a Panetta calculation, but that is not stated in the article yet. It is cited as fact but it needs attributing. So the hook is problematic. I'd propose something like this:
- ALT1 ... that the 2013 United States federal budget, under current law, is to have an about 20% cut to the defense budget, an 8% cut to domestic programs, and a 2% cut to Medicare?
- Good point, though I was in fact hedging in the earlier hook by saying "may impose" rather than "will impose". I've attributed the 23% number in the article; the CBO does give slightly different numbers [1] [2], though they're in the same ballpark. Note that the ~20% cut for defense includes both rounds of cuts, while the 8% and 2% numbers cover only the second cut; if these numbers are to be included, we would have to for consistency add in the first round numbers as well. How about:
- ALT2: ... that the 2013 United States federal budget may impose a 23% cut on the defense budget due to the Budget Control Act of 2011, according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta?
- Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, though I was in fact hedging in the earlier hook by saying "may impose" rather than "will impose". I've attributed the 23% number in the article; the CBO does give slightly different numbers [1] [2], though they're in the same ballpark. Note that the ~20% cut for defense includes both rounds of cuts, while the 8% and 2% numbers cover only the second cut; if these numbers are to be included, we would have to for consistency add in the first round numbers as well. How about:
