Talk:Mathematical economics/GA1

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

I will review the article. Give me a few hours to read it over a few times. --Patrick (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

First read
After reading this a few times, I have to say this is a very good article. So far I only have a few comments. More, I think, are coming. I have not reviewed the sources yet.
 * Does citation 3 cover the entire first part of the paragraph?
 * Yes. Schumpeter talks a bit about Achenwall (but it kind of goes into a diversion), then begins to talk about Petty. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be a pattern with redlinks and titles of published works. Some are linked, while others are not. While it's clear that some works will never have an article, there are others where it's a bit more likely.
 * There wasn't a reason. I wikilinked those redlinked books while this was a userspace draft, just figuring that they were notable (they are).  Someone will eventually make an article out of them.  I tried to not wk link to anything that will "never" have an article. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. --Patrick (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting
Protonk and Patrick, I'll be happy to give this a quick FAC-level copyedit if you like; let me know. I copyedited this article once before. The first think I see is that the lead is just a tiny bit too short per LEAD. I've had bad luck with trying to guess which facts in an article were most important to the editor; if you guys want to suggest what's important, I'll think about how to add it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is me being lazy. I updated the article and haven't updated the lead yet. the basic ideas are covered but I need to sit down and fix it up some night. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm totally happy with my big pile of 0.7 crap, so take your time :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay in the final review. I was unexpectedly called for a business trip but I do think that this article should be put up for FA status. --Patrick (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Final Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: