Talk:Ronald MacDonald (economist)/GA1

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

I believe this article needs reassesment because it does not meet several of the good article criteria.

Criterion 1: Well-written
The article's prose could comply a little tighter with the manual of style. In the Education and Academic Career section, the first paragraph starts every phrase with 'He...'. This is repetitive and could be misleading since the same phrase sometimes mentions Adam Smith and MacDonald. The title of the 'Discussion of Qualifications and Appointments' is inaccurate since there is no discussion of it; instead there is a brief exposition with no discussion. The layout is not sequencial: the section 'Discussion of Qualification and Appointments' is on the same level as 'Timeline of Qualifications and Appointments'; a more appropiate layout would be: Qualifications and Appointments in one level and two subsections: Discussion (if it were the case, see above), and Timeline. The section Journals is empty. The 'words to watch guideline' holds that articles should not use unsupported attributions: there are at least three: As a prominent figure in economic academia; ...has presented his famous five day courses; and Since 1996 he has been involved in succesful Research Grant applications totalling over.... The list of positions held by MacDonald is not appropiate by the list incorporation standards of Wikipedia: most economists have this information sorted out in regular prose (not embedded as a list). Also, the list of PhD Students currently supervised is not relevant to the article. His main students can and should be cited in a single sentence within the article, but not all of them. The list of books published does not comply with the manual of style guideline of including relevant information such as the place of publication, the publisher, or the ISBN.

Criterion 2: Verifiable with no original research
Citations for the World Wide Web pages do not include the name of the author, or the date of retrieval, as recommended by the manual of style. Reference number two is a broken link, as of today. The phrase ...has been widely applied by central banks and financial researchers... has a citation needed tag.

Criterion 3: Broad in its coverage
It does not address MacDonald's personal life, and not enough detail is presented on the relevance of his work for economics (other than the fairly impressive list of credentials).

Criterion 4: Neutral
The article reads a bit like self-publicity for MacDonald because there is too much weight given to his credentials and the merit of his work is backed up too much by its quantity and not by its impact on the economics discipline.--Forich (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No initial GA assessment ever done

 * No initial GA assessment was ever done. It simply got tagged GA here . I don't think a GAR is appropriate or needed, and I wouldn't want the article to be listed as a former GA.  I've posted an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles asking what to do. Will post any replies that I get here.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Collapsing as article never had a GA assessment to begin with. – S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)