Talk:130 countries at OECD summit agree to back global corporate tax rate

Review of revision 4625806 [Not ready]

Revision 4625806 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The lede does not answer wn:WHEN the said focal point took place. Without which I can't verify how new the article is, and thus, no clue if it is wn:FRESH or not. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4625806 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The lede does not answer wn:WHEN the said focal point took place. Without which I can't verify how new the article is, and thus, no clue if it is wn:FRESH or not. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Sigh. JJLiu112 (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Re-review

It is nearly stale, and I wrote a LOT. I’d like it to count. JJLiu112 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s stale now, but maybe someone can still review?? @Acagastya:, @Bddpaux:, @Green Giant:, @RockerballAustralia:?? JJLiu112 (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing stale articles is pointless, however, if the lede is correct, it happened on Thursday, it is not stale. I will be reviewing it later in the day.
•–• 04:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? Thought it was three days, 4-1=3. Well, not complaining. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If it happened on Thursday -- Thu-Fri is day 1. Fri-Sat is day 2. Sat-Sun is day 3.
•–• 06:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm joking Agastya. I do have some sense of humour in me left --JJLiu112 (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Style

@JJLiu112: Is it you preferred style to use "per cent" instead of "%"? Or are you okay with "%" instead? I don't mind either, but I perfer "%" because it is easier to visually identify in a lake of words.
•–• 08:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

There isn't really a consensus I've found on the Internet, so I just use per cent when describing different values to one, such as 80 to 90 per cent of men experience male pattern baldness; and % in any other case. It's really not a bother for me, please don't let this delay the reviewing process. --JJLiu112 (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Acagastya: --JJLiu112 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have changed all to the symbol for the sake of considtency. Having a single pattern in an would be appreciated.
•–• 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

implemented

@Acagastya: it will be implemented. This isn't an 'if' situation. --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping the countries from re-negotiating the terms, or some countries dropping out, forcing a new discussion, or some new problem arising that shifts focus away from this. For If (something), if the "something" is to happen, we stand correct. I don't know what you mean "This isn't an 'if' situation". Almost everything in the future is an "if". Last year in January, one could have said "When Wimbledom happens this year, Federer would me hoping to win his Xth Wimbledon trophy". Turns out it was an if, not a when. "If" future-proofs us. "When" puts us in the categories of phophets.
•–• 03:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4626112 [Passed]

Revision 4626112 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thanks for the article, JJLiu112. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4626112 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thanks for the article, JJLiu112. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Correction needed

{{editprotected}} Ugh. There are 38 members of the OECD, not 139. The sources merely say 130 nations agreed to a tax reform plan formulated by the OECD, and none appear to make this error (our headline, of course, is also wrong). Heavy Water (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

How about:

 
Correction — March 28, 2023
 

This article erroneously states the OECD had 139 member states; there were 38. 139 nations particpated in the OECD-led talks which produced this agreement, and it was agreed to by 130 nations.
  Heavy Water (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please review the correction I issued. This was a little tricky. Cheers, SVTCobra 18:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I'd gladly do it, but the full-protection applies to sighting as well. Heavy Water (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know that. Well, I'll do it with your blessing, then. Cheers, SVTCobra 19:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)