Template talk:Did you know/Budget Control Act of 2011
Budget Control Act of 2011
[edit]- 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 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 Crisco 1492 (talk)
.jpg)
- ... that the recent Budget Control Act of 2011 (signing pictured), which resolved the 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis, will not actually reduce the overall size of the U.S. public debt?
- Reviewed: Jason Richardson (athlete) ([1])
Created by Wasted Time R (talk), Markles (talk), JamesMLane (talk), and Antony-22 (talk). Self nom at 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
: Striking a confirmation that gives no indication any significant review of this article was performed. This article still needs a review, sorry. Sharktopus talk 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, the bill should reduce the debt relative to where it would have been had no bill been signed, but will not reduce the debt in an absolute sense, below current levels. I've tweaked the wording to reflect this. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Article:Length and date seems fine. Sourcing looks good, although some stuff is still uncited. Paraphrasing checks show nothing to worry about.
- Hook:Antony has expressed concern over the veracity of the hook. Interest is fine, hook facted is cited.
- Summary:
Verify the veracity of the hook, and improve referencing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Antony-22 already changed the hook to reflect his concern. Current hook with his modification: "... will not actually reduce the overall size of the U.S. public debt" Source footnoted: "There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending. By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today." So what veracity is at issue here? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that. There are still unreferenced bits in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll work on them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I now believe that everything in the article is covered under a citation. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll work on them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that. There are still unreferenced bits in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Antony-22 already changed the hook to reflect his concern. Current hook with his modification: "... will not actually reduce the overall size of the U.S. public debt" Source footnoted: "There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending. By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today." So what veracity is at issue here? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
GTG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
