Talk:Guido Imbens/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 17:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Beginning review
Hello I am looking forward to reviewing your article today and working with you. I typically give a week for any corrections to be made and make my final assessment then. I will provide a progress bar and more descriptive feedback to help you make improvements. Kind regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The article is nearly in a perfect state. I have a couple of prose/grammar nitpick listed below.


 * He has been Professor of Economics should be He has been a professor of Economics, though I see enough variations on Wikipedia of both.
 * Imbens was elected a foreign -> Imbens was elected as a foreign
 * Given the highly technical/economic focus of this article, concepts like Unearned income, Education economics (for college education or additional years of education on earnings), labor supply, machine learning/Random forest, should all be wiki linked. Econmetrics should be wiki linked earlier. Redundant wikilinks in this case may be warranted.

Status query
Filetime, where does this nomination stand? I don't see that you've addressed any of the issues that Shushugah raised, even though it has been seven weeks since the review was posted. Are you planning to work on them soon? If not, perhaps the nomination should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the issues have been addressed. I remain unsuccessful in finding a freely licensed image of Imbens of requisite quality. While this lecture has been released under a CC license, the video from Imbens' camera never occupies more than a tiny portion of the screen, making extracting a good quality still impossible. Filetime (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over
Regrettably, Shushugah has been inactive of late and unresponsive to queries. The nomination status has been changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll take over the review. Should be done by the end of the week.
 * First comments: the article looks good on the surface. It's well-written, no copyright problems. I've started checking for text-source integrity, and found two possible errors
 * The Volkskrant article doesn't include a date of birth
 * I found it hard to verify "Winners of $80,000 a year for 20 years reduced their working hours somewhat, but winners of $15,000 a year for 20 years did not. Among unemployed persons who played the lottery, winners worked more than non-winners in the six years after playing". I spent ten minutes reading the scientific article, but I couldn't find those exact numbers. Is it a WP:routine calculation?
 * And one prose nitpicking thing: fellow economist Susan Athey since 2002. Athey is a fellow economist -> instead of twice the word fellow, you can maybe name her specialty. Femke (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you add a second paragraph to the lede? I think the quote from the Nobel Prize is a bit too jargonny and it would be good if it can be supplemented by a plain explanation of what his research entails. (per WP:MTAU). Femke (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of the contextualising is done with a non-independent source (That Stanford piece). As Stanford may have some motivation to boast about their own researcher, an independent source is preferred for these type of statements:
 * The methodologies have been useful for researchers to analyze research problems as diverse as studying the impact of new regulations on economic activity and on new drug effectiveness on patients. ("as diverse as" doesn't feel 100% neutral to me)
 * "The paper and the model had significant impact on other research efforts across econometrics, statistics and other fields"

I'm placing the article on hold. Let me know if seven days is enough to tackle those issues. Femke (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Filetime: I was wondering if you've seen the rest my review, and when you think you'll have time to further improve the article. Femke (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , how does this look? Filetime (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Better :). Did you manage to verify that claim of unemployed people working more? It would be great for a WP:DYK if it can be verified. A page number would help here.
 * (pet peeve, ignore if you disagree, but can utilise be changed to use?) Femke (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * — It seems this information came from a working paper of the same title published in 1999, rather than 2001. The two relevant quotes are:
 * "We find that winning a modest prize ($15,000 per year for twenty years) does not affect labor supply or earnings substantially" (p. 2) and
 * "There is some evidence that for those with zero earnings prior to winning the lottery there is a positive effect of winning a small prize on subsequent labor force participation." (p. 2)
 * I just added the source in addition to changing "utilized" Filetime (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)