Talk:European debt crisis/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 22:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I noted a flurry of editing on the article when I opened this review, so I decided to wait a few days to see what happened. None of it appear to be edit wars and all constructive, so I will now progress the review.

Initial comments
Firstly, I suspect that the article will gain GA-status this time round: the article seems to be quite comprehensive, easy to read, well illustrated and appears to be well referenced.

I'm not checked any references at all, so there may be corrective actions with work need to bring the article up to standard, i.e. that of WP:WIAGA. We will see as the review progresses.

I'm going to work my way through the article section by section, starting at "Causes", working to the end and then doing the WP:Lead last. The nominator and other editors are welcome to add comments, ask questions, etc, as I go. I prefer that they added at the appropriate point, rather than placed in a section of their own.

As this is a long article, it might take a week or more to review. If there are no corrective actions, I will add a review summary and pass the article.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Causes -
 * Ref 17 16 is not fully cited. Its currently down as "NYT Review of Books-Touring the Ruins of the Old Economy-September 2011". Its actual a review published in the New York Times, on specified day, by a named writer, and the title of that article is: Review of Books-Touring the Ruins of the Old Economy. It should be correctly cited (use the cite newspaper if it helps - that is not mandatory). Note: Its a review of the book in Ref 18 17. (Note reference numbers have changed). ✅
 * Ref 17, i.e. "Lewis, Michael (2011). Boomerang – Travels in the New Third World. Norton", used four times, is not fully cited. Its a book, so the relevant page numbers should be given in the citation.
 * Has anyone access to this book?
 * Refs 20 and 21 are not fully cited, they are newspaper articles so the paper should be correctly cited, as well as the authors (currently not named). (see Ref 23, which is correctly cited) ✅


 * Rising government debt levels -
 * Ref 32 is not fully cited, it is a newspaper article with an author (currently not named). (see Ref 23, which is correctly cited) ✅
 * Ref 33, used three times, is a 44 page pdf document it is mostly fully cited, but the relevant page number should be given in the citation(s).✅


 * Trade imbalances -
 * Ref 35 seems to be a broken web link - it gives an "Error Object not found. (WWC-50003)" message.✅


 * Monetary policy inflexibility -
 * Ref 36 is not fully cited, it appears to be an article with an author (currently not named).✅


 * Loss of confidence -
 * Other than comment above about ref 33, this subsection is OK.


 * Evolution of the crisis -
 * Ref 40 is not correctly cited, its an article with two authors (currently not named) and two coordinators.✅
 * Ref 41 gives an 404 "Not Found. The requested document was not found on this server", suggesting a broken web link.✅
 * Ref 42 is not correctly cited, its an article with two authors (currently not named).✅


 * Greece -
 * Refs 44, 51 and 59 are not correctly cited, they are articles with an author (currently not named).
 * The first sentence of the fifth paragraph has the following: "......during the first 2 year of the crisis". Its not clear what this means: it is "....during the first two years of the crisis", for instance?✅
 * The last but one paragraph refers to PSI: this seems to be a term or abbreviation that does not seem to appear anywhere else in the article (perhaps I've not yet found it), nor does it appear to be defined.✅
 * The phrase "marginal coupon enhancement" also appears in the same paragraph. This is a technical term that aught to wikilinked or otherwise defined.❌
 * how to fix this.
 * Yes, its seems to be a bad case of technobabble. "Coupon" is this one Coupon (bond). I think "marginal coupon enhancement" means "gotta slightly better rate": but coupon rate leads to Nominal yield which is somewhat useless as a wikilink. I wikilinked Coupon (bond). Pyrotec (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The final two-sentence paragraph is unreferenced.✅
 * Otherwise, this subsection looks OK.

.... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ireland -
 * The first paragraph is unreferenced.
 * Refs 87, 90 and 93 are not fully cited, they are articles with an author (currently not named).✅?
 * Ref 88 is not fully cited, its with an article with two authors (currently not named).✅


 * Portugal -
 * The first paragraph is unreferenced.
 * Ref 98 (Wall Street Journal) leads to a 404 error, possibly indication a broken web link.❌
 * Anyone out there with a WSJ subscription?
 * Ref 101 (Wall Street Journal) leads to the Wall Street Journal and a page unavailable message.❌
 * Anyone out there with a WSJ subscription?
 * Otherwise, this subsection looks OK.


 * Cyprus -
 * Ref 107 is not fully cited, its with an article with two authors (currently not named).✅


 * Possible spread to other countries -


 * Greece -
 * more material that is only partial cited has been added during this series of edits: .✅


 * Remaining countries -
 * Similar comments to those above, i.e. mostly OK, but there are some refers that are only partially cited.

As no corrective actions have been carried out and the article is being continuously revised, I see little point at this time in continuing the review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Review On Hold
 * I guess I fixed most of the ref problems but not all of them.--spitzl (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am continuing to review the article. I was hoping that the POV tag would have been resolved by now. Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Policy reactions -
 * EU emergency measures & European Central Bank -
 * These two subsections look OK.


 * European Stability Mechanism (ESM) & European Fiscal Compact -
 * These two subsections look OK.

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Economic reforms and recovery proposals -
 * This sections looks OK.


 * Proposed long-term solutions -
 * Debt defaults and national exits from the Eurozone -
 * Commentary-
 * There is a citation needed flag in the second paragraph that needs to be addressed.✅
 * I did not add this paragraph and I don't really have an idea where to look for the source. I guess we should remove it if no source is provided. --spitzl (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The final sentence states: "....into a kind of postmodern version of the old Austro-Hungarian empire....". Well OK, but "Austro-Hungarian empire" aught to be wikilinked and its clear to me whether the link should be to Austria-Hungary or German Confederation. ✅

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Controversies -
 * I don't believe that the phrase recklessly bought in the sentence: The European bailouts are largely about shifting exposure from banks and others, who otherwise are lined up for losses on the sovereign debt they recklessly bought, onto European taxpayers is supported by the six references. The rest, does seem to be supported. ✅
 * Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * EU treaty violations -
 * Convergence criteria -
 * This subsection is unreferenced.✅


 * Odious debt -
 * At present this just has a link to the wikpedia article Debtocracy, it aught to have at least a citation.✅


 * Political impact -
 * This is unreferenced and it seems to include new material that does not (I might have missed some) that does not appear elsewhere in the article, so it aught to be cited. --spitzl (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)--spitzl (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - This should both introduce the topic and summarise the main points (see WP:Lead for the criteria. It works quite well as an introduction, but it a bit out of date now as a summary (due to development of the article and the addition of new material).
 * A lead is typical three or four paragraphs, so possibly the need needs to be (perhaps 50 % to 100% larger - just a guess not a requirement).
 * I would prefer to list what is missing, since that could mean that I "assigning" importance, but there is nothing (in summary form) about Political impact, speculation about break up of the Euro, summary of Economic reforms and recovery proposals and perhaps the argument (from Germany) about "moral hazard". --spitzl (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Lead is looking much better, but I've not yet checked it in any detail. I'll do that tomorrow (Friday). Pyrotec (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Once these (mostly the Lead) are sorted out I'm award GA - sorry about the time it has taken to get to this stage. Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm now putting the review On Hold, so that these can be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanx for your work. You have done a great job! --spitzl (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

POV tag
Somebody has added a POV tag on the article and the talk page does not explain which part of article should be changed. Please solve the problem as soon as possible or the good article nomination will fail. -- Seyyed(t-c) 05:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

===Failed "good article" nomination=== Upon its review on July 9, 2012, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

"contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, cleanup, expand, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced, etc, or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, huh, or similar tags"

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Seyyed(t-c) 17:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is still under view. Pyrotec (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I warned about the tag and asked several times from the nominator to improve the article and remove the tag but nobody paid attention to it. In my view the editors are not active enough to improve the article. So it should be failed. You can solve the problem and nominate it again.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you did warn about the tag. Thanks for your input. The tag was added on 7th June 2012 (see here ) after I started the review and after the first set of corrective actions had been carried out by the nominator. I carried out the initial part of the review (see Reviewing good articles First things to look for) between 19th and 22nd May 2012 and at that stage there were no grounds for Quick failing the nomination. So, I am still reviewing it. You are perfectly entitled to express your opinion and I will take it into consideration at the end of the review. If you object to my review, when it is finished, you or anyone esle can submit it to WP:GAR.
 * As far as I can see, one particular editor has listed a number of problems (see Talk:European sovereign-debt crisis and Talk:European sovereign-debt crisis) and other editors have added additional material in response, but it has stopped there. If, when I get to the end of the review, I find bias that will be valid reason for failing against WP:WIAGA clause 5, i.e. Neutral point of view. However, I've only reviewed the first three sections (and I'm doing the WP:Lead last). I have the article on my watch list and the article's history (see ) shows that the article has been undergoing almost continuous improvement since the review started - which does make life a bit difficult for a reviewer (so I stopped at various times). It is obvious that most of that work is article improvement and not edit waring. Pyrotec (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank for your clarification. Of course, you will review the article whether there is a tag or not. But it is the duty of the nominator and other editors to solve the problem and remove the POV tag as soon as possible. I think this is the least thing they should do before you review the article. Maybe we have different style. If I were in your shoes, I suspended the review and asked them to solve the problem first.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Its take a long time to get here, but I'm happy to be able to award this article GA-status. Thanks for addressing the corrective actions promptly. Pyrotec (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Well referenced.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Well referenced.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: