Talk:Affordable Care Act/GA1

GA Review 1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 03:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hidden sections are outdated. Scroll down for most recent updates.

Read comments

Hello, I haven't done many GA reviews so I'll just leave some thoughts about this article and get this process started. 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) 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)

Discussion

Read comments

Hi there! Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I need to let you know that I'm about to shoot off and can't reply again for at least 24 hours, but I ought to leave a few quick comments: Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Hi, I've added a title to make sifting through this easier. LT90001 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Update 1

Read comments

Hey guys. I just thought I'd leave a note about what I intend to do to improve the quality of the article: 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) 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) 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) Will get back to this tonight. LT90001 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 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) Great, good luck.LT90001 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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)

MOS issues

Read comments

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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Update 2

Read comments

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Update 3

Read comments

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) 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) Thanks! I agree about the use of bullet points. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 05:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC) 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)

Update 4

Read comments

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) 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: Y 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: Y 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: Y 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) 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) 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) 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)

This article is too big to chew off at a single time, so I'll review in chunks. LT90001 (talk)

Lede + Provisions

Lede + Provisions  Done

Wiki's manual of style: Law (WP:MOSLAW) suggests that where possible primary and secondary sources are used for legal cases and law. That relates to the GARC for verifiability. Includes:  Fixed "However, the Court held that states cannot be forced to participate in the ACA's Medicaid expansion under penalty of losing their current Medicaid funding.[11][12] " Here ✗ Also guaranteed issue, minimum standards, individual mandate and other points in the provisions section.  Question: I'm not sure this is reasonably feasible - at least, as far as I can tell, not being experienced with legal citation. For example, the guaranteed issue provision, I can find references to it (e.g. Page 124 STAT. 243) but that seems more an explanation than the section that actually makes it law; or take the minimum standards, which presumably covers several sections of the law itself. Given this, I think it may be appropriate to accept secondary-only references? However, I have asked Wikiproject law to help, in case I'm mistaken. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Obviously, this is only a recommendation. If the statement is especially interpretive, or makes reference (or uses information from) to a large number of sections (preferably at the subsection level) within the subject Act of the article, then it may be a little too difficult to do good. See Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act‎ for some rather good examples IMO. If a sentence happens to touch on a large number of sections of a law, then this is going to be a very slow process, and not something that I think should be worried about right now. (Because for every word someone changes, they may need to add or remove multiple primary source references, which of course they will not do, causing a mess.) But if required, {{USC}} and {{USStat}} are the templates of note. But beware of WP:PRIMARY; a secondary source should be given regardless, if there what is said will not be immediately clear from the primary sources given. Was this what you were asking? Int21h (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC) I understand the law is over 2,000 pages long (or so the media says), so it's a bit unrealistic for you to be expected to make these specific references. If possible I think it would be good to be specific, but it is not necessary for GA status. LT90001 (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Well, I can at least confidently claim to have tried to ensure sufficient secondary source referencing in lieu of law quotations. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC) No doubts there! LT90001 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Redundant sentences mentioned in the 'provision' section that are covered elsewhere and/or do not relate to the content of provisions, but why they were developed, include: ? Sentence "For more details, see the list of provisions ('Effective January 1, 2014')." is a little redundant and already mentioned at the start of the section,  Question: I know there's the 'main' link but I wondered whether it was worth signaling that there's more details (on the size of the penalty, how it's applied, the exceptions, etc.) in the provisions, which was why I added this bit? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC) I think this sentence is out of place and detracts from the readability of the paragraph. It is also unusual to have an in-text reference to 'see also' another article. If you want to include it, how about an intra-wiki link such as "These provisions will start [[list of provisions ('Effective January 1, 2014')|January 1, 2014]]"? LT90001 (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC) That doesn't quite capture why I added it - linking the effective date implies to readers a timeline, not there's more details, so they won't think to check it if that's what they're interested in, or even know that those details are there. I've hyperlinked 'or pay a penalty' to try to accomplish both your readability concern and my concern of indicating where they can go for more details. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Y This paragraph "This was included on the rationale that ... " could be moved to the section on "insurance exchanges", as it does not directly relate to the nature of what was provided.  Question: I've hesitantly deleted this bit. I realized it was not about the nature of the provision but about the rationale for it; but I felt this particular provision required it being the least understood part of the law. It would be great to get a second opinion on whether that was a worthwhile justification for including it in that overview section? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks, this is a mammoth and very thorough article, so any sentence that deviates in the slightest from the purpose of each section I have been asking to remove or move. Without this clarity it is very hard to read... I offer the analogy of a runner who is completing a race, but every so-often is pulled over by a spectator for a word or two about their running style. Even a short diversion can take the metaphorical steam out of you. LT90001 (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I believe I see your point. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 12:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)  Fixed "This is designed to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund, and therefore reduce the deficit." is covered in the section "reducing the deficit" and relates to the reason for, rather than the nature of the provisions Paragraphs which are not cited include:  Fixed Lede of provisions section re. "grandfather clause" is uncited.  Fixed This paragraph: "Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include individuals ..." is uncited Miscellaneous grammar issues include:  Fixed "bundled payment" ends with a colon  Fixed "A single payment is paid to a hospital and a physician group..." Probably more conventional to start the sentence with "For example,".  Fixed "health care delivery system" -> "healthcare" or "health-care" or your selected variant: this article alternates between all three.

Legislative History

Legislative History  Done

Overall a tight, verifiable and well-written section. Background  Fixed? "combination of measures to control health care costs, and an expansion of coverage through public insurance (broader Medicaid eligibility and Medicare coverage) and subsidized, regulated private insurance." A little confusing because of the two 'ands' and parentheses. Suggest reword "... through broader public insurance (specifically Medicaid and Medicare coverage)..."  Fixed "The latter of these ideas forms the core of the law's insurance expansion. " is redundant, as this section covers background and you have just talked about the provisions above.  Fixed? "An individual mandate requirement coupled with subsidies for private insurance was considered a universal health care proposal that could win the support of the Senate, for it had been included in prior bipartisan reform proposals." I think this is implied by the title "background". Perhaps reword to: "This has been proposed before in bipartisan reform efforts."  Fixed "complex or unrealistic " -> "complex and unrealistic (comma)"  Fixed "And in 1994 " -> "Additionally, in 1994"  Fixed "penalty provision [46]; " -> "penalty provision;[46]"  Fixed "stating had decided " -> "stating he had decided"  Fixed Suggest remove "So I’ve been surprised by that argument."[36]"; this paragraph is about republican initiatives and not current opposition. (also I feel the 'I don't remember that being raised at all') already strongly conveys this.  Fixed “An individual health-insurance “ -> "health insurance" (with space); occasionally the hyphenated form pops up, this is a little inconsistent Health care debate, 2008–2010 Does "in particular - "mean these were all the senators involved in the finance committee?  Note: No, the Finance Committee has more members than that, but those were the ones on it considered to have the greatest chance of brokering a bipartisan deal. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Ah, I see. LT90001 (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)  Fixed Suggest move "and can be seen on the C-SPAN web site[58] or at the Committee's own web site.[" to "further references" - I am not aware of other articles which provide in-text external links like this.  Fixed Suggest wikilink the names here: "particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, and Olympia Snowe".  Fixed for clarity, suggest reword "given not only how Democratic (‘blue’) Massachusetts is, but also the symbolic importance of losing the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy" to "a psychological one: the symbolic importance of losing the traditionally Democratic ('blue') Massacheusetts seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy"  Fixed "the loss made "-> "which made"  Fixed suggest remove "that had become controversial" as this is implied by the text above, and also the sentence is confusing enough without this extra clause.  Fixed "their supermajority " -> "the Democratic supermajority" House  Fixed "December 24; the" -> "December 24 (comma) the"

Public policy

Change in number of uninsured

• ? This is just a suggestion, but I think it may be easier to read if this section flows from benefits of insurance and which groups will gain insurance, and then move the part about people who will remain uninsured to a bit lower in the paragraph. As it is, I feel it's a little spontaneous in direction.

 Question: I'm having trouble seeing what you mean since I thought it kinda followed that direction already - going from number of newly insured to those who remain uninsured, with any other less notable (but still notable enough) details following? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 12:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Looks good as is... must have been something I ate. LT90001 (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have held back on the brownies? =P Sb101 (talk|contribs) 06:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed Suggest change "uninsured group will be" -> "Among the people who will remain uninsured", for clarity.
•  Fixed? "provisions have all taken effect.[109][110][111][112] " cites three primary sources and one secondary source that most likely quotes from one of the cited primary sources. Suggest trim 1-2 and then bundle.
•  Fixed? Suggest "eight million – they will " -> "eight million, who will" without the hyphen, for readability.
•  Fixed Suggest new sentence at "; they will also"
•  Fixed? Is there any way to make this sentence a bit less technical? I think it's a bit much for someone who might be glancing through the article. "ACA drafters believed that increasing insurance coverage ... costs among.[120]"
•  Fixed? "Due to the new regulations ... until age 26," suggest remove "and" for readability

 Note: The sentence refers to two different regulations - but I reworded the sentence slightly to clarify that. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 12:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Great. LT90001 (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "parents" -> "parents'"
•  Fixed "the Census Bureau found at the same time" (unspecified what time)
•  Fixed "In January 2013, the Internal Revenue Service ... new health insurance exchanges starting in 2014. " suggest break into two or three sentences, this is very hard to process
•  Done suggest remove "For those unable to afford insurance ... the mandate may be waived.", this is stated in the above criteria. (or below, if you have moved it down)

Insurance Coverage

•  Moved to preceding subsection, Fixed Suggest topic sentence = "The ACA has two primary mechanisms for increasing insurance coverage: increasing the coverage of Medicare, and creating state-based 'insurance exchanges'", as it is a little confusing what the two mechanisms are at the moment. You can then alter the paragraph accordingly.

Much easier to read. LT90001 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Y The paragraphs "The insurance exchanges are a method... " and "The aforementioned regulations ..." could do with some citation bundling, it is difficult to read with so many citations.

 Question: I managed to get a few but not a lot of ones from the same author to bundle; although hopefully some of the editors have made it more readable regardless. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's looking better, but there's still an issue where citations interrupt sentences. To get rid of this, I suggest:

• and inflation)[138] through regulations:[139][89]. Group these three citations, and start a new sentence after "through regulations."
• "state exchanges[143] to" move this citation to end of sentence.

• • ? Some intrawiki links could be trimmed from these two paragraphs. These include the two links to "death spiral", two links to "adverse selection" and "Congressional Budget Office", which is surely linked elsewhere.

 Question: I realize it's unusual, but I thought they were justified: For the CBO, it hadn't been linked in that subsection and since I was only referring to it by acronym I thought it best to hedge bets for the reader. For the other two, the problem is that since you had the concepts are only being alluded and then referenced, I thought it made sense to reference them both - that way readers could realize and follow a link to an alluded concept and not be mystified by the lack of link to the concept once referred if they didn't check the former? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. As a commentator overtly makes the link to "death spiral" I don't think there's a need for the implicit link. Fair enough for CBO; this is a long article and readers might not get to the other links. Some of the allusions (for example 'free-rider problem') are actually quite illuminating. I think in order to reduce the wikilink load and enhance readability it would be best to remove the second reference to "adverse selection," which is more oblique and already alluded to anyway. LT90001 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have mentioned below some long sentences which could be split up for readability purposes.

Specific suggestions:

•  Fixed "fill out a form to the government that will determine their eligibility for subsidies"... suggest add "fill out a form that will be used to..." for clarity
•  Fixed? For neutrality, suggest change from "( contrary to some rumous" -> "Although there has been some controversy, Members of congress..." and remove parenthesis.
•  Fixed Suggest remove "etc." as it is not very encyclopedic. There might be more reasons but I'm confident you've listed the main ones.
• ? "And price regulations " -> "Price regulations"

 Question: I really think that the 'And' is necessary to signal the end of the list (of ways to make it affordable - subsidies, competition, price regulations)? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

All right. I don't like starting sentences with conjunctions, but as this is a MOS issue it's not part of the GA review and I'm happy to demur. LT90001 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from, as I used to feel the same. But as I looked into it, it seemed its use is justified if used sparingly and not to create sentence fragments (see: 1, 2, 3) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 06:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "The aforementioned regulations " -> "These regulations" (aforementioned is a little too technical)
•  Fixed? New sentence "enrollment,[129][130] without which" -> "Without this, "

 Note: Created a new sentence from "got sick; in such a situation." Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Much better. More time for the brain to breathe. LT90001 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• "and the limits on open enrollment" not quite sure what this means

 Note: One can't enroll at any time in the year, only within certain (limited) windows. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. LT90001 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed? For readability, suggest flip sentence to be: "Without this, a vicious cycle could occur, in which ..." and new sentence "This could result in insurance death spirals."
• Do you mean the failure to enroll penalty: "six million will pay the penalty in 2016.[154][155] "?

 Note: Yep! =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed For readability, suggest split "Under the law, setting-up an exchange..." into 2-3 sentences.
•  Fixed "discretion; and " -> "discretion (comma) and"
•  Fixed Consider integrating parenthesis into text and starting a new sentence here: "functions), whereas "

Change in insurance standards

•  Fixed "their 26th birthday.[168][169][170]" has the primary source, the press release documenting the primary source, and a secondary source. Suggest remove one of them and bundle for readability.

 Note: Deleted the press release. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 15:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed Suggest new sentence "essential benefits,[166][171] which cover"
•  Fixed Suggest reword "Among the essential health benefits; preventive care, childhood immunizations and adult vaccinations, and medical screenings[175][176] will have co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles eliminated - these services will be covered by an insurance plan's premiums.[21][177][178] " -> "Among the essential health benefits (comma) ... will be covered by an insurance plan's premiums, and have co-paments, co-insurance and deductables elimiated." This one sentence has five citations. I suggest remove one or two, and bundle the rest at the end of the sentence.
•  Fixed Suggest "Specific examples of benefits covered include:" so as to remove the confusion that you gave some examples (preventative care...) previously.
•  Fixed? This sentence "Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.... policyholders if this is violated.[182][183][184]" suggest remove "and" as start of the new sentence, remove a citation and bundle the other two.
•  Fixed Suggest move citation here "These regulations[187]" in contraceptives section to the end of the sentence.

Effects on insurance premiums

I will more-fully review this section in several days' time. Would it be possible for you to run your eyes over the paragraphs, particularly paragraphs 2 and 3, and decrease the intensity of the technical language? For example, "The analysis forecasts that by 2016, for the non-group market comprising 17% of the market, premiums per person would increase by 10 to 13% but that over half of these insureds would receive subsidies that would decrease the premium paid to "well below" premiums charged under current law. " For the purposes of readability, I would also request that would add a topic sentence to paragraphs 2, 4 and 6, as I find it a little confusing to work out how they fit into the overall section given the technical language. Sorry, I am just a meek medical reviewer! Kindly, LT90001 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy to do this - apologies for not having done so sooner; as you may have noticed, it got busy here recently, but things seem to have settled done so I've been able to get back to resolving the issues you've been highlighting. But I won't do that tonight after having worked on the rest (Sorry, I need sleep - I'm only human! =P) =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 15:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I'll await your changes before I get to this section. I'm aware of the discussions on the article and admire your perseverance and dedication in improving this article. LT90001 (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request (Resolved)

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

Healthcare cost inflation

Having read the section on the federal deficit below this section, would it make more sense to move most of the content here? As it is the content is quite similar.

The following should be changed as it could be constued as NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE:

• The two quotes from Jonathan Cohn and Joanathan Gruber. These should be paraphrased in text: for example, "The CBO estimate has been criticised as failing to take into account..."

The following are small grammatical gripes:

• Here: "requires numerous pilot programs and demonstrations that may affect healthcare costs", "requires" is an intransitive verb and needs an object ("requires... to")

Other comments include:

• This list: "Several studies have attempted to explain the reduction in the rate of annual increase. Reasons " and the paragraph below is a off-topic, as it appears to be talking about reasons that healthcare cost inflation has not increased in the period 2002-2009, whereas the section and article relate to the PPACA. If you retain, I suggest cut it by at least a paragraph and alter to explain why this is relevant.
• The two images are too big. I suggest either remove one (the first image most likely, as this graph simply shows healthcare costs rising with respect to GDP, which is expressed in the text), or put them as thumbnails with a caption along the lines of "Rising healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP, 2000-2011 (click to view larger image)", so that readers still know that the full image exists, but so that the images don't stand out like sore thumbs in this article.
• The phrase about having a track record of underestimating is repeated in the section on "federal deficit"; suggest you delete here and retain there.

Federal deficit

A good mix of opinions.

The following are small grammatical fixes:

• "total outlays (expenditure) and "total receipts (revenue), maybe use the intrawikilinking to remove this paraphrasing, it is odd to see an article paraphase itself.
• "on the ACA, which enabled " -> "that enabled" (without comma preceding)
• "period (because " suggest integrate into text: "(comma) because..."
• Suggest reword "editors Noam Scheiber (an economist) and Jonathan Cohn (a healthcare policy analyst), " to "editors Noam Scheiber and Jonathan Cohn" with no introduction (as they have been introduced already); if retain introduction, suggest integrate into text, eg. "editors economist Noan Scheiber and health-care policy analyst Jonathan Cohn"

Other notes include:

• This paragraph "found to be overpaid (relative to government Medicare); and reductions in Medicare reimbursements to hospitals that do not meet standards of efficiency and care." is uncited.
• Suggest reword "- omitting its cost from the ACA is no different than omitting the cost of the Bush tax cuts" to a passive voice, such as "However, it has been argued that not including ... is no different to..."
• Image's caption " CBO: Deficit reduction under ACA; the "bump“ is a little unclear. Suggest reword and cite the CBO heritage. For example, "Deficit reduction under the PPACA [cit]". Also, this might benefit from a sentence in text explaining healthcare costs will go up before they go down (which I assume is the function of this image)

Employer mandate and part-time working hours

Citations

• This assertion "stay in place." is uncited.
• "As of yet, however, only a small percent of companies have shifted their workforce towards more part-time hours (4% in a survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis).[254]" This is a primary source and I am not sure that the FRB of Minneapolis is representative of the entire country.
• "Workers who do not receive insurance from an employer plan will still be able to purchase insurance on the exchanges." is uncited.
• "law.[262][263][264][265][247] " has six citations (two are bundled); suggest you remove 2-3.

Grammar & readability:

• Suggest remove "and the employer mandate was a part of this attempt" as meaning is clear from position in paragraph.
• Suggest move "(44% of the total population) " to after the 54% statistic for consistency and readability
• "situation; however " new sentence -> "situation. However, "
• "medically related " -> "medically-related"
• "employer’s " -> "employers(apostrophe)"
• "political rationale of " -> "rationale for"

Other:

• This sentence seems a little off-topic: "(At the same time, though, some analysts ... rather than using the 50-employee and 30-hour cut-offs).[253][262]" ; if retain, suggest reword to "Some analysts have suggested an alternate 'pay or play' system..." Either way, this entire sentence shouldn't be in parentheses.

Update: yep, you mention alternate systems in the sentence below, so this follows nicely. LT90001 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I will stop here, review "political" in one chunk, and "opposition and resistance" in another chunk.

More MOS issues

The section titled "Myths" violates WP:WTW: "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, there may be too many external links. I'm not sure the NYT and WSJ topic pages are necessary, and the article from the Atlantic seems a bit random (there are hundreds of magazine articles on the subject; why is this the most relevant?) -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)