Talk:Markus Brunnermeier/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This article has some significant shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is too long for such a short article, and repeats too many mundane biographical details that will soon be stated in the article body. Links should be repeated in the body, rather than forcing the readers to find them in the lead.
 * I have no real way to resolve this. If I make the lead how I would want it, it would be two sentences, but wouldn't really summarize what goes on below.  However if you and I can agree that a two sentence lead would be preferred, I'm happy. :)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See below
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Markus_Brunnermeier/GA1&action=editsuitable captions):
 * Has a good search been done to see whether there is a photo of him that WP can use?
 * I don't know what you consider sufficient for a good search. I haven't emailed him yet.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I don't know what you consider sufficient for a good search. I haven't emailed him yet.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Regarding point 3a, the coverage of Brunnermeier's economics work seems pretty good. But the coverage of him as a biographical subject is very poor: Many of these are basic points that biographies need to cover. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When was he born? Even if this isn't known, several newspaper articles have given his age, and using them some constraints on his date of birth range can be formed.
 * Where was he born?
 * What does his middle initial stand for?
 * Of what country(ies) is he a citizen? If American, when did he become a citizen?  Or is he still a German citizen?  Is he a dual citizen with Germany?  Why did he win a prize for European economists if he is only an American citizen?  The article left me completely confused on this point.
 * Is he married? Does he have children?
 * Does he have any political beliefs that have been made public? Has he donated to U.S. political candidates (which is in public records)?
 * Does he teach classes as a professor, and if so what?
 * Thanks for the review. More comments/changes later, but I'm broadly constrained by the sourcing at hand.  There may be other sources which I haven't found yet, but given the ones I do have I can't answer most of the questions you posed above.  Again, thanks and more comments later. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comments. I don't know those biographical details and Lexis searches are not illuminating.  As for the wife/children/politics, I don't bother to look that stuff up unless it is somehow relevant to the subject's notability (broadly following WP:NPF).  The questions about what classes he may teach is interesting.  It is entirely possible (likely, in fact) that he doesn't teach class at all, the Bendheim Center for Finance looks pretty research-minded and princeton is probably getting their money's worth from his publications alone.  My suspicion to your european question is that he is a dual citizen or an emigre and that he was eligible for the prize because he is from Europe and did his doctoral work there.  I'll do my best to clarify points in the article as needed. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, without knowing the citizenship(s), both the first line of the infobox and some of the categories are suspect. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conversation on both sides stopped nearly a month ago. If it satisfies the reviewer then pass it, if not then fail it. Or if nothing else note why there's a delay. Wizardman  17:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I normally give a full month for inactive GANs, but I suspect nothing will (or can) change here. I'm failing this GA on the grounds I stated above: when there's so little fundamental biographical information publicly available that one can't even determine what the basic categories are, I don't think it can be a "good article".  It may be as good an article that can be written based on the information publicly available, but to me that's not enough.  Others may disagree, and of course User:Protonk is welcome to bring this to WP:GAR for further review.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)