Talk:Richard Cantillon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be doing this review. Looks very well researched.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent read. Since I expect you'll be pushing this one on towards FAC, I'm giving you a tougher review than normal for a GAN. I really only have comments for the initial sections since after that I dug in and did it myself.
 * Lede
 * "little available information on Cantillon the man" Perhaps, "little available information on Cantillon's life"
 * "Cantillon speculated in and helped organize" Logically, wouldn't he do that in the opposite order?  You also might want to do a quick mention of the fate of the Mississippi Company here, which would let you do just a passing reference in the third paragraph.
 * " great wealth. Unfortunately, his great wealth" Perhaps change one of the "great wealths" to something else? "Unfortunately" is probably a POV term that should be avoided.
 * " by Jevons" link? And I'm unclear on why "rediscovery" is in quotes.
 * I find phrases such as "as aforementioned" and "among others" totally unnecessary. A shorter number of words is generally preferable.


 * Biography
 * "shrouded in mystery" A little too dramatic for an encyclopedia, I think.  Perhaps "Although there are many uncertainties ..."  Also, a lot of people really don't like the word "while" when used as a synonym for "Although".
 * " Born in County Kerry, Ireland," This declarative phrase, part of an ablative, I believe, reads oddly in combination with the previous sentence.  Perhaps reverse the order of the first two sentences.  "the son of" is probably more common than "son to".
 * " found himself" was. You might also want to mention what war was going on.
 * "organized" As Cantillon was British, you must use British forms, so "organised".
 * "Cantillon became involved in the banking industry" What did he do?

General comments:


 * Look for the shortest way of saying something.
 * See if you can get someone better versed in economics than me to give it a copyedit.
 * You may be a bit too technical in the economics sections, but I'm not certain.

Anyway, it passes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review, and especially for the copyedit (a lot of spelling mistakes on my part)! The specific suggestions you've made have been followed.  I will see if someone is willing to copyedit the article, and I will take another look at the language used in the technical part of the article. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)