Talk:Affordable Care Act/GA1 - Wikipedia

• Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge that this article clearly took a lot of work and is about a topic that I'm sure many people would like to know more about.
• Length. This article is very long. Other articles are split at about 105kb; this is 300kb. (Wikipedia:Article_size). I'd consider splitting 'Provisions by effective date' into a separate article.
• Prose. Some sections read a little like an essay and could be written a bit tighter. I'll give two examples.
  • "The plan that ultimately became (not needed) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act consists of (arose from) a combination of measures to control health care costs, and an insurance expansion through public insurance (expanded Medicaid eligibility and Medicare coverage) and subsidized, regulated private insurance. The latter of these ideas forms the core of the law's insurance expansion, and it (remove) has been included in (previous) bipartisan reform proposals in the past (remove). In particular, (As an alternative to public insurance) the idea of an individual mandate coupled with subsidies for private insurance, as an alternative to public insurance, (remove) was considered a way to get universal health care that could win the support of the Senate. Many healthcare policy experts have pointed out that the individual mandate requirement to buy health insurance was contained in many previous proposals by Republicans for healthcare legislation (this is mentioned above), going back as far as 1989, when it was initially proposed by the politically conservative Heritage Foundation as an alternative to single-payer health care.[176] "
  • Another example where tightening could occur: One point of difference between the plans was that (this is redundant) Clinton's plan was to require (required) all Americans to obtain coverage (in effect, an individual health insurance mandate), while Obama's was to provide (provided) a subsidy but not create a direct requirement. During the (2008 US) general election campaign between Obama and the Republican nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, (remove) Obama said that fixing health care would be one of his top four priorities if he won the presidency.[191]
  • If you'd like some help I'd be happy to give this a go - it seems a bit unfair to leave the burden of work on the author alone, contact on my talk if you'd like me to have a go.
• Parenthetised comments. I don't feel it's very encyclopedic to have parenthesised comments, eg. (After failing to obtain a comprehensive reform of the health care system, Clinton did however negotiate a compromise with the 105th Congress to instead enact the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997)." These should be integrated into the main text and cited.
• Citations. Some sentences are uncited. For example:
  • "Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of the Massachusetts reform, advised the Clinton and Obama Presidential campaigns on their health care proposals, served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration, and helped Congress draft the ACA."
  • "(After failing to obtain a comprehensive reform of the health care system, Clinton did however negotiate a compromise with the 105th Congress to instead enact the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997)."
  • Many references are just URLs. These need to be cited properly.

All right, I'm going to stop there. This article is too long and I find myself glazing over sections because the prose is not tight enough. By this I mean there are numerous example where a sentence is used where a word could do. This article should have sections split:

• Budgetary analysis of ACA (or some such)
• Provisions of ACA (or some such)

Overall I find this article an extremely thorough analysis, clearly with a lot of work put into it, that needs some slight tweaking to become a GA. In the meantime I'm going to upgrade this article to B class.

I hope that this review can get the ball rolling on some other reviews, too. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Technically, "properly" formatted citations are not required. WP:LINKROT is bad, but properly formatted or complete citations are not one of the GA criteria. See WP:GACN for more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've added a title to make sifting through this easier. LT90001 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Length. Yep, definitely long. It almost certainly can be made more concise (such as the formatting clean up and prose you've mentioned), but I think most content can't justifiably be deleted; it's simply a complex topic, and whilst we need to ensure WP:Summary, comprehensiveness pushes in the other direction. Re: WP:SIZERULE "These rules of thumb only apply to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." I will try and find out the prose size vs the mark-up size (300kb) asap, but do feel it fair to emphasize that rules of thumb can be violated if required to provide a comprehensive summary, which is my intent?

Splitting. The only thing which seems possible (long enough for it's own article that hasn't already been - like Legal Challenges) is the Provisions. That was tried previously and there was opposition (I will link the discussion later). At the very least, I do want to get a template to remove the 'Provisions by effective date' subsections out of the main 'contents' for the article; something like this is what I intend to create. If we could find some precedent for a law's implementation timeline being split, then that might be the best way to restart that old discussion thread. But as for the budgetary analysis, I don't think that (i.e. PPACA impact on Federal Deficit) is long enough to warrant its own section? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that the the content needs to stay, although the prose may need some tightening. Regarding splitting, I am happy having put this issue on the table, and await the input of a second reviewer. LT90001 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Prose. Definitely agree (can't promise I'll agree with every proposed change - namely the 'consists of' > 'arose from' - but at a glance I'm happy with most everything else cited) - will have to address when I get back. Although (as much as I appreciate the offer), if I and other editors work on it we'd avoid potential conflict of interest for reviewers - not sure how that works, but thought I'd mention it. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hah, yes it would rather destroy my impartiality as a reviewer, so I might demur (from editing). When writing about the need for formatting, I am aware of the enormity of revision this simple statement will require, given the size of the article. LT90001 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Parenthesized comments. Perhaps some we can/should go over some, but generally I felt this was correct: e.g. Olympia Snowe's retirement isn't the same subject as the topic of the paragraph in which its included but it is related, interesting to readers, and can't really be included elsewhere (given the appropriate context). But for others, perhaps I could just remove the parentheses from, say, the Clinton/SCHIP example? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any problems with this article's grammar, but parenthesis detract from the encyclopedia-ness of the article. I don't feel many professional-level publications use parenthesis as much. LT90001 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree; the use of the parentheses generally is grammatically sound, but the overuse of parentheses in this article detracts from its encyclopedic tone (most articles use parenthetical statements sparingly, if at all). In most instances, sentences can be restructured to remove the parenthetical statements without damaging the content, and such sentences will have a more encyclopedic tone to boot. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Citations. For some uncited info, I thought wikilink to the program was adequate instead of a reference? e.g. Clinton/SCHIP link, Gruber/Gruber's page (Otherwise I can just copy a ref from those pages, but as I say, I thought wikilink for those kind of tangential things was/is sufficient). And I have been meaning to edit the page to make the citations complete and consistent. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm not too sure myself. But I think if you undergo a formal review this is something the reviewer will pickup quite strongly, so I thought I'll give a mention (see e.g. every review of a featured article candidate).LT90001 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again, look forward to hearing back from you (and I will get started on those edits asap).Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Length. I followed the instructions of this how-to page (suggested by WP:SIZERULE), and found that that the "readable prose size" is 77 kB (though it doesn't seem to count material from bullet points, even so). According to WP:SIZERULE guidelines, this is in the group "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)." I would definitely argue that (bullet point caveat or no), the length in this case is justifiable (minus prose tightening/formatting). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for considering this. Yes, I'll note some policies that refer to this: WP:SUMMARY, which states that "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving summaries in their place.", WP:SIZERULE which states that "> 100 kB... Almost certainly should be divided", WP:TOOLONG which states that there may be readability issues above 50kb text, and WP:GACR, which states that a good article "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Having said this, I understand the length is a matter of some consensus, and I'd be happy to invite some other editors on WikiProject:Med to give their thoughts on this issue.LT90001 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Splitting. Here is the discussion on the List of Provisions. However, I have added a sub-ToC in the Provisions by Effective Date subsection to preserve content within article AND navigability without cluttering the main ToC (I'm working on getting it out of the main ToC but thought I'd put the outline up there now). I feel like this will be a good compromise for the moment.
• Prose. I edited the two highlighted paragraphs. This may be dense of me, but are you able to point out further sections that could use tightening? I'm not sure if this makes sense, but I think I have author blind spot =P Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Will get back to this tonight. LT90001 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Parenthesized comments. Thanks for getting this started Prototime. I'm happy with the reasoning you two provided for this, and will help when I can; but there is at least one parenthesis (beyond things like "(PPACA)" in the lead and e.g. '(D-VA)') that I think we should keep: the one regarding Snowe's retirement. I really don't think that can easily be integrated + getting rid of most parenthesis doesn't have to mean getting rid of them all, if appropriate.
• Citations. This is pretty straightforward. I just need to find the time to make them complete and consistent. And as for adding references, I should be able to find a suitable ones from the wikilinked pages.
• Media Misc. There are two images that I really want to include and am trying to get permission to use (if limited use, proper attribution via cite): One of One of the Romneycare signing for 'Background' from Getty Images, and One of the Obamacare signing from the AP. I will email them. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great, good luck.LT90001 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

And I'm still working on including the Kaiser video in the overview. Given the problems with .ogv identified by GO3, I'm planning on embedding the video using its link on youtube, given WP:Linking to user-submitted video sites: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page..." (aka copyright, which I have covered and will use a reference to remove the template that's on that page atm).

Sorry for the delay in getting around to it. I've just got a lot of work on atm. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Been a little busy myself! I look forward to your future edits. I'll more fully elaborate some of my positions later. LT90001 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Having hide/show buttons contravenes the MOS.
• Most images should be set to default size so that readers can than set the size they wish to see under preferences.
• Page is to long at nearly 300kb. Sections need to be summarized and split off into sub articles. While one occasionally allows the pushing of 120kb, 300kb has significant accessibility issues.
• The lead is the OVERVIEW. Why is there a section called overview?
• There is a picture of a table that should be made as a table here.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi There!

• Images. I have gone through and tried to format the images in a consistent manner. Pictures with people are now default size. Others I have restored to larger sizes. I have kept them at or below the maximum allowed (500px - WP:IMGSIZE), but image forcing is accepted where appropriate (WP:IMGSIZE); certainly, the ones that I have kept large are images that are practically unreadable at the default size, like graphs, and various maps of the US (PPACA votes, Exchanges/Medicaid). I checked the "Barack Obama" page (first one I could think of that I know is WP:FA) and it uses images in the exact same manner e.g. 'Employment statistics...' under 'Economic Policy'. (As for the table, I have no objections to someone fixing this).
• Hide/show buttons. I don't *think* this is the case. For example, it is used on election pages for endorsement lists and hypothetical polling; I believe it was accepted to appropriately include relevant historical information that did not merit it's own article. That is how I've used it in the case of the temporary waivers for coverage standards. However, I'm not attached to its inclusion, but in that case summarizing the section will have to be different. I'm not opposed to deleting several sentences in the collapsed bit (to integrate it easily) whilst leaving references linking to the information covered by those sentences. If that sounds preferable, let me know and I'll add it to my to-do list.
• Overview. The 'overview' section is an overview of the provisions and funding (the central elements of the law as opposed to say the legislative history, or impact, or opposition). This seemed clear, I thought. Perhaps it should be labeled 'Overview of Provisions and Funding' and then bold the 'Provisions' and 'Funding' rather than make them subheadings. But it is certainly a justified section.
• Length. As per preceding discussion section, the article is not too long. To quote, again, WP:SIZERULE: "These rules of thumb only apply to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." The wiki-markup is indeed nearly 300kb. The readable prose is 77kb (give or take bullet points; I'm simply quoting the readable prose size given my use of the 'Prosesize' tool). I would also say that (prose tightening not withstanding - a work in progress) the sections are summarized, and those sections that merit their own article have already been split off. Constructive suggestions are welcome; there's not a whole I can work with just from a wiki markup quotes without identifying sections that could be summarized better (or how).

Sb101 (talk|contribs) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do not consider it a GA at this point in time as these issues remain undealt with. Per (3) I do not consider it sufficiently focused. Per (6) it is not appropriately illustrated as some of the illustration should be tables. A couple currently stretch beyond a single screen and the maps should be set to default size. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Most of the issues above are not GA criteria. For example, MOS:COLLAPSE is not on the GACR (last I checked, at least). The bigger problem is the WP:UNDUE weight given to primary sources, especially WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources. It would be better to see a couple of those books under ==Further reading== being cited for the bulk of this information. Having nearly 500 different sources cited is almost always an indication that your sources are weaker than they should be. There simply aren't 500 top-quality secondary sources for most subjects, and even if there were (there might be for a subject like Algebra), if your sources are actually high-quality, you'd never need to cite that many different ones to cover the subject. One good, comprehensive book ought to cover at least half this information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think DocJames/JMH649's comment is very unconstructive (nor persuasive) so I'll skip that and focus on the fixes I discussed in Update 1. However, regarding sources, I have been through most of them and they seem both reliable and necessary - on the latter point, the problem is that a) this is a complex topic; b) a controversial topic. It seems that the sources are appropriate given otherwise challangable material. I figure(d) content is more likely to be challenged without references than with the cumulative number of reliable references we have? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 19:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Right. I'm going to have to write a bit of a longer response here. Firstly, we're both eager to get this article up to GA class. However in the interests of getting along well with fellow Wikipedians it might be good to show some level of amenability to DocJames/JMH649's comments, even if you're not going to change too much.

Secondly, I can't remember if I have notified you or not, but I have earlier placed a comment on WikiMed here requesting some more comments. I did this because of the advice in Reviewing good articles that one should get a second opinion on a point of dispute, namely that the article is too long. I'd rather get some second opinions and build consensus on this point of difference rather than stake my entire review around it. On that note, I have copied and pasted the text of the article into my sandbox and it's 130kb there. The kilobyte count is a little immaterial really; having review other articles, and in light of the comments above about length and number of references (related to length) I think there is consensus that irregardless of the kilobyte count, this article is too long.

Moreover, I genuinely think that the effective provisions section is below the overall quality of the article. It means that the article doesn't match the "summary style" criteria of a good article (point 3 on Good article criteria) and it is very hard to more-thoroughly review an article that's so long. You can definitely use {{Seealso|x}} or {{Main|x}} to refer to a second article whilst preserving some content. Without these changes I think there is consensus that this article can't be promoted to GA status.

The fact you've added a small table of contents implies you've also given some thought to how long the article is. It's very tempting to want to put everything in one article, especially when all the information is so crucial. Unfortunately that's not always possible, and perhaps if you think of articles as sections rather than standalone chapters in a book it will make the transfer easier. The number of references will also decrease if this content is transferred to another article. Moving the content will also improve the focus, decrease need for illustrations, and relocate the troublesome word/table and overflow image (the comments above). As it is, without this change, despite it's many good attributes, this article can't be promoted to GA status. LT90001 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for linking the Wikimed discussion. I hadn't seen it before.

And I wanted to say sorry: I was mostly frustrated that DocJames seemed to jump in without reading any of the preceding discussion on length nor offering any ideas to resolve it. I could have responded better.

Look, I'm not resistant to changes; I have and will keep working on improvements: I've addressed (or tried to) the parenthesis and prose issues (and will do more, if more areas for improvement are highlighted), and intend to go try and format the citations. + I suggested ways to address the collapsible buttons and was/am waiting for feedback to resolve; I will focus on fixing the other stuff unless I hear more on the overview/collapsible.

However Length/Splitting is the obvious sticking point. First, I appreciate the Sandbox calculation. For the record, I was in favor of changing the List of Provisions by Effective date initially (way before the GAR), but dropped it when I faced resistance. Since that is also the problem section, and there's evidently more support than previously, it seems the best approach is to move the Provisions by Effective Date into its own article (being the biggest, least summarized section). I have attempted to do this myself. I need that article approved for creation so that I can delete the content from the PPACA article and then add a {{Main|x}} in the Overview + edit the Wikilinks within the article.

Please let me know whether this is acceptable; and if anyone can please approve the new article, I can get to editing PPACA, and then re-evaluate re: the GAR =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 12:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your considered reply. Yep, let's not get stuck on the overview/collapsing thing. From my understanding, as you are a registered user you don't need to go through the Articles for Creation process, and you can directly create the article by clicking on the link here: Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by effective date. With that content transposed, we can start on a proper review of the remaining content which I will try and get done within a day or two. LT90001 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so that's done. Look forward to hearing back. =) P.S. If more needed to go, the only section that could easily be deleted would be '3.1.3.2 Temporary waivers during implementation, 2010-2011' given it is rather narrowly applicable (and therefore low notability) historical matter. Beyond that, it gets much harder. But just as a heads-up. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 15:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I haven't read much here, but I am a random med participant who is also in the middle of reviewing Talk:Low back pain/GA1, which is thankfully well under half of the prose count here. (I've still identified a variety of ways to help the prose become more concise.) Generally speaking, given the Wikipedia:Length#Readability_issues of such a lengthy article (it's gotta be over 80 kB due to the skipping), I would be disappointed to see this article get up to GA without some significant trimming. Esp. considering that point 1 of WP:GACR says the prose is concise. I hope I don't burst anyone's bubble here, but we really should be putting readers first. That said, I will concede that I have only read small portions of the article. I don't know if my opinion would weaken or strengthen after a more in-depth analysis. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

First off, kudos to LT90001 for a thorough GA review process and to Sb101 for being thoroughly responsive. I just wanted to throw my two cents and mention that I, too, support splitting off the "provisions by effective date" into its own article. To further condense the article, I suggest merging into the "Provisions" subsection the list of provisions enumerated in the "Change in insurance standards" subsection, since some of that content is duplicative. Concerning the removal of content like the "Temporary waivers during implementation" section, I'd like to point out that WP:SIZE makes clear that material shouldn't be deleted (though can be moved) simply to reduce article size, but if there are other reasons to do so (such as lack of notability), it can be removed. Personally, I agree with the notability view and think that as long as the temporary waivers are mentioned on the List of Provisions article, the corresponding section can be deleted on this article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea of an overview of the main provisions (which I'd prefer to rename, 'Overview of Provisions'). I think there needs to be, and people do want, a short summary of the most important policy chances (+ the provisions don't easily merge into change in insurance standards e.g. the mandate, the exchanges, the subsidies, medicaid); I am going to read over it to see if I can improve/tighten the prose. On the other hand, I am inclined to merge 'Funding' with the CBO estimate of deficit impact; and I'm wonder whether the last paragraph of the CBO estimate is redundant - I think eliminating it (per lack of notability) wouldn't detract from the article's content.

First, however, I am going to try and move more content into the new 'Provisions' article - namely content relating to regulation waivers and delays (which I believe - but am not 100% sure - are different i.e. some waivers may be part of the law as opposed to the administration's implementation discretion). This will also make this article more concise. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 08:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

That sounds great, it is good news to hear the article is moving forward. I fully support integrating the 'funding' section and moving further parts to the 'provisions' article. LT90001 (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

So I've made some more changes. Currently I'm looking at the 'Change in insurance standards' and figuring I should add in a 'see also' to the Provision list page + remove the bullet points because there is too much redundancy; I can integrate the non-redundant bullet points into the preceding paragraphs (if notable). Once that's done, I'll have a look to see if I can think of anything else atm, pending prose-tightening suggestions or anything else. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 12:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so I feel like I've taken a good crack at addressing the length - moving content/prose tightening. I'll definitely keep looking over it myself, but I'd appreciate some secondary input at this point: a fresh set of eyes may see room for improvement that I might be missing. (Also, re: Prototime, whilst I am quite in favor of an overview of provisions, if anyone's got thoughts on a better way to do that section - I dunno if a table or anything would make it more readable - I'd love to hear it because I'm having trouble thinking of something there). P.S. Re: Overview - I think it's small enough that it could stay as bullet points, but it's more of a 'if this can be done better' kind of deal (as opposed to 'this needs to be done better'). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 18:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great job tightening the prose, Sb101. I'll need to think about the provisions section a bit more. Generally Wikipedia disfavors bulleted lists in place of paragraphs, but when discussing the provisions of a piece of legislation (especially a giant one), the bullet approach seems sensible. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I agree about the use of bullet points. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 05:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

On a separate style-related note, I wanted to mention that this article appears to have too many wikilinks. For instance, I've counted the number of times that the NFIB v. Sebelius article is linked to in this article as six. Per WP:OVERLINK, generally something should be wikilinked to only in the lead and the first time it appears in the content below the lead (infoboxes/footnotes excepted). I'm not particularly a stickler for that rule where it seems helpful to include an additional wikilink or two beyond that, but when I read this article, I do find the number (and size) of blue links a bit distracting. It also may be helpful to reduce the number of words in piped links, as a few of them contain rather large phrases that are linked. I'm happy to help with this, but I wanted to mention it here first (as a few removals may be judgment calls). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yea, I am generally looser too (for example, I think it's helpful to link when something is critical to a subsection in which it hasn't already been linked, even if it's been linked in other subsections). I'll help go over them and see about removing/shortening any; however, I'm just about to head off so I may not get around to working on this myself for a day or two. Thanks for the heads-up. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 05:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

On second blush looking much better! Some thoughts:

• Dot points - in the provisions section, they make some points easier to read, although with too many it's not very discursive or encyclopedic.
• The 'legislative history' section is comprehensive.
• Length. The article is much better with the content removed to the provisions article. Having moved that much content, I think that this is an issue that is important and controversial enough to warrant a longer article. I'll just flag some issues at the moment that could do with some tightening:
• The two images that stretch across the screen, is there any way to make them smaller, crop the edges, or move one down to another part?
• Many statements have multiple sources from the same author. This could be a good thing, considering how controversial this topic is, however I note that several times several consecutive citations come from the same author. For one example: "votes for passage.[66][67][68]" are all from the same author. That's the same here "Republican Senate Leadership who opposed reform.[68][87][88] ", here "They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed via the reconciliation process.[98][102][103] ", here "leading cause of bankruptcy in America[120]) and job lock;[121][122][123]" and I'm sure in several other places.
• The section "Summary of taxes and offsets" could do with some tightening. It is also very similar to this publication: [1]
• The "For example, a Reuters-Ipsos poll during June 2012 indicated the following:"'s dot points could be summarised a bit more.
• On the wikilink note, there are some sections with huge wikilinks. Several in the section "Insurance exchanges and the individual mandate" stretch for almost an entire line.

To leave you with two positive things about the article, the attribution style is very good - always starting with "According to (x), ...". I think that's wise for an article like this! And lastly, I'll point our that that the Good article review criteria (WP:GACR are not as strict as the featured article review criteria and a GA candidate doesn't have to adhere to the manual of style completely. (Wikipedia:GACR#Notes) LT90001 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your thoughts. As mentioned, I don't have time to address them until I get back, but I thought I'd quickly note my ideas for improving the article:

• For statements with multiple sources from the same author: usually, if I've been the one to add references like that, it's because the two sources aren't (completely) redundant - that there's value in including them both. What I thought would be a good solution for such statements is to bundle the sources from the same author, which I'll get to work on asap. [And, at least for the ones I'll be looking over anyway, I'll try and make references are formatted consistent].

In groups of citations from the same author, I think it might be best in this case to select one or two (at most) from each author that best represents your point, so that these are easier to verify. Bundling is certainly an idea for those bunches of multiple citations where it seems like consensus has been reached. LT90001 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'll see what I can do to reduce or shorten wikilinks. As for the exchanges subsection in particular, I will try and shorten these ones too, but a couple of them may still be relatively long even after shortening due to the nature of the linked concept; perhaps wait and see what you think after I get a chance to do whatever I can, at least.
• I'll look into the sections you highlighted for tightening. (I'm also happier with the article post-Provisions split).

And I'll review the dot points in the Overview to double check if there's any that can be shortened, merged, or deleted (reserving the overview for significant provisions) to make sure there's not too many.

• As for the two images, can you confirm which ones? The reason I ask is that, after DocJames first brought it up, I did edit the images I thought were being referred to: either moving them into the provisions article, or - in the case of the health inflation images - formatted to try and fix the issue. If you can clarify, I'll take another look at it. [And I'm still waiting to hear back from AP/Getty].

I refer to the image "U.S. Healthcare Costs - Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services", which stretches across the screen. Perhaps you could use a <gallery> with the other graph (CBO – Deficit reduction under ACA), or split these into two separate images sections, or repost these on wikicommons in smaller size. As it is, the layout is a little nonstandard. LT90001 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I've gone through and bundled statements with multiple sources from the same author. I've kept it down to one or two per sentence with the exception of reference 151 (... "spread the cost of insurance in a sustainable manner.") - the reason for keeping 3 in that is that one reference links to Urban Institute Study, another to the CBO, and the last is more narrative (illustrating the concept from the statement). And I've tried to catch and fix incomplete references whilst doing that.
• I've done my best to reasonably shorten the wikilinks.
• I resized the two images and uploaded them - I haven't (yet) changed the formatting because I wanted to see if that fixed the problem you're having, because I can't tell (I'm not having the same issue myself). If that doesn't work I'll see about splitting them/using a gallery. I'm kinda crossing my fingers that it won't be necessary since, imo, they look as is.
• And I've tried tightening the Public Opinion you bit you mentioned, as well as the Overview of provisions. I'm having trouble thinking how to tighten those any more.
• For the Summary bit in the CBO/deficit section I added a Kaiser Family Foundation resource. Having not uploaded the initial material myself, I'll chalk up the similarity to the link you mentioned to coincidence + the fact that it's presumably referencing the same CBO material. However, I have found (by adding up the quoted changes) that it is very likely to either by an early or incomplete summary, as part of the deficit reduction power identified by the CBO is missing. Given this is the case, I rewrote the section to replace it with a written summary of 'major' deficit reduction (tax increases/spending offsets) sans the dollar figure amount; given the links to the CBO report and it's overall assessment, this should be sufficient + I the end result looks tighter.

Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let's have a review where this article's at in terms of the Good Article Criteria (WP:GACR):

• Well-written:
  • Issues:
    • Lede does not mentioned controversy.
    • Issue with conciseness, especially in the impact section, of which every subsection could probably have a paragraph trimmed.
    • I find the heading structure of Federal deficit section a little confusing, especially with the images all around it.
• Verifiable with no original research:
  • Issues:
    • over 350 individual and bundled citations, and 450+ references to citations makes this article very hard to verify.
    • Over 85 from "The New Republic." Occasional primary and secondary sources to present sentences. Over 70 from "Jonathon Cohn", often several supporting same statement.
    • significant size given to Reuters-Ipsos June 2012 poll
    • essay-like format in insurance exchanges and myths suggests original research.
• Broad in its coverage:
  • Issues: conciseness as mentioned above
• Neutrality:
  • Issues. generally quite neutral, heavily reliant on some sources, possible OR
• Stable:   relatively.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images:[6]
  • Issues: Those two images together stretch way beyond the 500 pixels recommended in the image use policy (WP:IUP)

At this stage, I'd like to note that the advised normal duration is a week (WP:GAN/I). In this light I'm going to put this review on hold (GAN#hold). I think it might benefit the article, the reviewer (that's me!) and the review if we slow this process down a little. I can see this article making GA, but in the medium-term, and I don't think there are any 'easy fixes' that can get the citation issue worked out in the near-to-short term. If you're a participant at any active Wikiprojects, an extra set of hands helping do-up this article might help tighten the prose and citations.

I'll drop in every few days, and other reviewers are welcome to leave comments on this review during this period. LT90001 (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

First, thank you for your thoroughness and patience. Presuming it's still ok for me to comment on the issues you've mentioned:

Well-written:

  Done? Lead mentioning controversy.

• Other editors tried to address this in the third paragraph of the lead: It does mention the Supreme Court case, and we wikilinked the 'Opposition and resistance' section in the bit about the law facing challenges? I thought this was sufficient weight in the lead, given that it is well covered in it's section, as can be seen from the contents?

  Fixed Heading structure of 'Federal deficit' section.

• I moved the 'see also' bit about the debt to the same place as the 'see also#Provisions' under the CBO estimates heading to fix this (bringing the two section headings closer together, making it more readable).

Verifiable with no original research:

  Justified for verifiability? Citations/References.

• If it makes a difference, it's about 350 all up: the bundles aren't hiding the overall count because many of the bundled citations were created by breaking a 'ref name' citation i.e. before I bundled the citation count included repeated references, now it includes bundled references. This is in line with other large (featured) articles, for example.
• Jonathan Cohn writes at "The New Republic," so that explains the latter. The reason I've cited Jonathan Cohn is that he writes nearly exclusively and frequently on in-depth health care policy; he jointly publishes many columns with Kaiser Health News; and often quotes and links to new studies (by GAO/CBO, and Kaiser, etc.). So I'd defend such references because they are reliable, and including them makes the content more verifiable. Also, since most of the bundled references are Cohn links (which were formerly multiple referenced citations instead of bundled ones), the ref count overstates his relative contribution to the sources: I counted, and there's 'only' 52 (some repeated in bundles), significantly less than 70+.
• The Reuters-Ipsos June 2012 poll seems representative, but other polls and polling aggregators are referenced in that section - from Pollster.com, 538.com, RealClearPolitics, CNN, USAToday, Kaiser Family Foundation, and WSJ.

  Verifiably not OR Insurance Exchanges and Myths sections.

• The first 3 and last 2 paragraphs of the insurance exchanges are pretty straightforward - hardly any room for original research; the final and most complex paragraph I realized might look like that which is why I included the studies by the CBO, Jonathan Gruber, Rand Health, and Jonathan Cohn - which all say the same thing i.e. I've referenced the most challengeable material so people can verify that reliable sources say what I've summarized.
• Similarly for myths, sources from PolitiFact, FactCheck, and Snopes.com have been referenced to show that it is not original research.

Broad in its coverage:

  Conciseness, especially 'impact' section.

  Question: I have fixed previously highlighted issues; without specific suggestions, I'm having trouble seeing if/where/how it can be improved

• I have tried my best. At this point trimming will, I think, be cutting into content - so any removals would have to be for lack of notability. I'm not a member of any Wikiprojects, but I have asked the people from WikiProject United States Public Policy and WikiProject Law to take a look.

Illustrated:

  Fixed U.S. Healthcare Costs images.

• Images changed to gallery style, which (I didn't realize before) seems to solve the stretching problem.

Neutral.

  Done

Stable.

  Done

(Updated: noting recent changes and clarifying my thoughts on where the article stands) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 01:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I think with an article as vast as this it must be quite a lot to do as a one-man show, so I support the inclusion of some extra editors to get some new eyes on the job. LT90001 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ha! Yea, I can confirm it feels like that. But I've seen it through this far because I think it'd be great if we can get to GA status by the start of October, when the exchanges start, to ensure people will have a good quality article with reliable information on hand by that time. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article is looking much better and the prose size is significantly down to 85k of readable text and 'only' 31 full page views from top to bottom of article (stopping @ references), including contents and those two huge pictures (I'm only using this as a metric to indicate how much the article as changed). I'll start with a full review later today. LT90001 (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

• 9/29 @ 6:20pm eastern - Request an update to the following:

From: "excluding those with incomes above four times the poverty line, about $94,000"

To: "excluding those with incomes above four times the poverty line, about $94,000 for a family of four"

Reference, see original source from which the $94,000 originated from. $94,000 for a family of one is significantly different than $45,960 for a family of one, with the latter being the actual number for a family of one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.32.86 (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done! =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 02:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply