User:Ryan Phang/The Paradox of Banknotes/Dominique.visperas Peer Review

General info
Ryan Phang
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ryan Phang/The Paradox of Banknotes
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):A current article doesn't exist since this is a new article.

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Ryan! First off, the article looks great at first glance! All the hyperlinks go to the right place, and it's incredibly informational about the cash paradox. While I personally don't know much about the topic, the article summarizes the phenomenon and its speculated causes well.

The content appears to be primarily informational. There's no presence of a specific opinion, a desire to persuade, or a bias of any sort. It's written neutrally and meant to purely inform. It's a dense topic, especially for people who might not know a lot about it going in, but you do a good job thoroughly explaining it in the beginning and ensuring all missing bases are covered. I don't have any withstanding or lingering questions about the paradox.

It'd be difficult and tedious to explain the jargon or specific terminology present, so the hyperlinked definitions help immensely. Even things like the 1940s, COVID-19, and other things that don't seem initially related to the topic have hyperlinks, which aids in garnering a better context on the article. Everything grammatically and sentence structure-wise seems great as well. A few run-on sentences here and there, but that's a small thing to point out.

Everything included on the topic feels significant and necessary to understand the paradox as a whole. Especially as a more difficult concept to digest, all the information included feels needed to fully comprehend it. If you do plan to add more, you could go a bit deeper into the history, maybe looking at a few of the instances you list above, such as the decline in the early 2000s or how the paradox became more prominent during the pandemic. I know it's a more recent term, but you could maybe also go further into how it impacts certain countries or currencies if you want to add more to the article.

All of the citations line up with their respective source. Since most of them come from established websites and academic articles, they're all reputable and not opinion-based or feature an agenda. As a new article, it's well organized and follows the initial templates you'd see in other Wikipedia articles. As this is a newer more niche economic topic, I think you do a good job of garnering sources that are both accurate and also representative of the paradox and the literature that covers it.

Overall, this reads well and is a structurally strong and sound article. You did the sourcing well, and the content is well organized. While I personally don't know a lot to evaluate the accuracy of the content, the article is incredibly insightful and gives a great summary of the paradox and its prospective causes.