Talk:Tiger Cub Economies

The term...
This article should be about the term Tiger Cub Economy/ies and the economies as a group. It should not just be discussion of the individual economies without reference to the term.

It's interesting that only one of the references supplied mentions "Tiger Cub Economies". --Merbabu (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: This article has a number of problems, and I've started cleaning it up.
 * Most of it is unreferenced
 * Most of it is repetitive info that really belongs in the Economy of XXX articles.
 * Most of it is about the individual countries, and not about the term "Tiger Cub" or about the group as a whole
 * A lot of it is copy and pasted from articles - that is a copyright violation
 * Much of it is just quoted opinion about prospects for the individual economies. That's not what a encyclopaedia is about, however, that would be great in a trade promotion brochure.
 * The fix for most of this is just removal of the offending information. I've begun the process of fixing it up. If that means a smaller, but better quality article, then that is fine. regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit by Denlah
I recently copy edited the article, correcting a typo and generally improving the flow. Here are the major changes that I made and why I made them:

1) I removed the entire fourth paragraph and its complimentary cite. This was because it delved into superfluous information on a study that had been mentioned in the second paragraph. I figure that it didn't need to be stated twice, and the exact projected rankings of the economies was irrelevant as long as they were all in the top 50. Perhaps the deleted cite should be tacked on to the second paragraph, but otherwise I think that deleting paragraph 4 was a good decision to streamline the article.

2) I improved the flow of the third paragraph as best as possible. This was a bit hard, because its former pronoun usage was ambiguous. I did my best in determining what the antecedents of all the pronouns were, and then put the information in a more logical order. This paragraph still needs review because all of its information is uncited.

3) I put the information in the second paragraph that related to the origin of the name Tiger Cub Economies in a more logical order. I think this change is less disputable than 1 and 2. What I mean by that is, if challenged and given a good explanation, I could understand why my edits for 1 or 2 would be reverted. But this one didn't change information much and was straightforward copy editing.

4) Similarly, I copy edited the first paragraph (the opening sentences) without changing information.Denlah (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It all looks pretty good to me. nice work. I'm not sure about the improving education statement though - it's vague and unreferenced. Perhaps we need to pull that out? In my opinion, a small (even tiny) article comprised of quality material is better than a long one of poor quality.
 * My biggest gripe with the article used to be that it was just a collection of information about the four economies individually with no comment on the collective. That’s been largely resolved now. --Merbabu (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)