Talk:History of macroeconomic thought/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments: Okay, so before I start this review, I should make it clear that I am only a student of economics, rather than a practitioner (or indeed graduate). I justify my review on two grounds, then: (1) because they aren't many highly trained economists willing to review articles; and (2) because, as shall become clear, I do not feel that this is going to be a particular contentious review. Clearly, the article is of a high quality. The question is more: what weaknesses does the article have? I shall focus my review on the "below the surface" features of image tagging quality and use of sources for this reason.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose is of an acceptable quality, though the style is considerably in advance of the accuracy. Contributors to the article should consider reading it through; the mistakes are not difficult to find. As I say, however, the prose is sufficiently good for the GA level and all major Manual of Style points are met.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 2(a) There is a reference section; 2(c) everything is cited, rather nicely. I shall return later to 2(b); for the moment, it will suffice to note that a cursory examination of the source list reads impressively. Many if not all of the sources, assuming they are well-used, are not just reliable, but also of a high quality.
 * Okay, spot-checks. Cite #173/4: yes. #118: Iffy, but probably acceptable (source is cautious in suggesting empirics alone were the driving factor). #190: Fine. Other sources: all sound plausible given my knowledge of macroeconomic thought.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article has everything one would expect from a primer on (modern) macroeconomic thought, including Keynesianism, neo-classical economics, the Lucas critique, etc. It is highly commendable in that regard and I have no problem passing it.
 * One suggestion for addition is a clearer statement about the theoretical underpinnings of the real economy in neoclassical economics, i.e. that is a function of the factors of production (presumably land, labour and capital at that time) and their use. This also shows up in the lack of an (old) growth theory section, old growth theory being trivially derivable from that assertion; the new growth theory is a little lost as a result. It also means that quite a few people who should get name checked in the origins section don't.
 * If that expansion did not appeal, perhaps the best thing to do would be to move the article to History of modern macroeconomic thought?
 * A clearer distinction between forms of the Phillips Curve (original, adaptive-expectations-augmented, rational-expectations-augmented) would also be a "nice to have" in that section.
 * Finally, I agree with Kiefer's suggestion at RFC that the development of econometrics could be included.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It is impossible to discern a bias in all the prose that I have read in detail (i.e. virtually all of the article). This is particularly commendable given the nature of the arguments involved.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Image use is good (you even used one of mine!), though I had to fix one description.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Will finish the review tomorrow. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 00:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are clear avenues here for possible improvement which the contributors to the article should explore. Nevertheless, the actual Good Article criteria are relatively undemanding, and, as such, I am obliged to pass the article. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Thanks for reviewing--and passing--this article. I'd like to improve it further and get it up to featured status, so I would appreciate more feedback. What do you mean "though the style is considerably in advance of the accuracy"? Not sure what that means.
 * 2)I'll cleanup 118.
 * 3) Do you think an old growth section should be added? I considered adding one in "Keynes's successors."
 * I don't think the "modern" qualifier is needed. Sources tend to agree that macro proper begins with Keynes, and I think this article does a good job covering precursors. Which economists do you think are missing from the origins section?
 * Will work on Phillips curve section.
 * This is a theory article, which means empirical work is tangential. It already has more on empirical work than the sources it's based on. What specifically should be added regarding econometrics?--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)