Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of Mexico/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

Economy of Mexico

 * Support Self-nominated. -- the D únadan 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading the second sentence of the lead, I've spotted the use of "recently" - a little time-dependent and vague. When was that? CloudNine 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question, and I thought I had the answer: 2004. Yet, as I was looking for a table to reference it, I realized that neither the CIA Factbook -the source being cited- nor the World Bank keep historical data in their databases, at least not for PPP GDP. (The World Bank does keep historical data for GDP and GNI at current dollars). Surfing the web I found PPP GDP data for 2004, and PPP GDP data for 2003. These data confirm that it was indeed 2004 the year that Mexico "crossed the trillion dollar threshold". I'll change the "recently" for, "in 2004. -- the D únadan 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments - I'm no expert in these matters, so take the following with a pinch of salt, but I'll make them nevertheless!
 * Which version of trillion & billion are we using throughout?
 * Trillion, I'll add a link. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahah, but trillion and billion are links to disambiguation pages... which one of each are you using?! The Rambling Man 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1,000,000,000,000 (one million million; $$10^{12}$$). -- the D únadan 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS on headings like "Banking System", should be "Banking system".
 * Fixed. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Two "after"s in the first sentence of History section makes for weird reading. In fact, that first sentence is about fifty words long, too long for my small brain!
 * Fixed. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is on par in italics? It's English after all.
 * I though phrases like "on par" or "vis-à-vis", being "imported" from other languages, could be written in Italics, but I am not sure. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These words are foreign loanwords but they've become so common in English vernacular that marking them with italics doesn't serve any purpose (per MoS). Resurgent insurgent 07:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you had written French "en par", it would belong in italics, but the French-derived English "on par" does not. —Cuiviénen 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, on par is not marked with italics anymore. Circa is, should it be considered vernacular English too? -- the D únadan 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "From 1940 to 1970 GDP increased sixfold, whereas population doubled.[7]" - perhaps "..while.." instead of "..whereas..", minor point.
 * Good point. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DASH for year ranges such as 1981&ndash82.
 * Fixed. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "(protected constitutionally)" could be un-parenthesised and just written "...both of which were protected constitutionally..."
 * True. Fixed. They still are protected, though. =) -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "comprised by..." - that'd be better off as "consisting of..." or "comprising..."
 * Fixed. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Most of this reduction was done in rural..." might read better as "Most of this reduction was achieved in rural..."
 * Fixed. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Regional economies section starts with "Nonetheless..." - feels a bit strange.
 * True, I had noticed that too. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "As it can be seen from the map.." - don't like it - just refer to facts rather than a graphic.
 * Done. The data in the map is referenced in the text. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (2006 est.) vs (est. 2003) - consistency check needed for how to represent the estimates.
 * Fixed, using (YEAR est.)-- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "(see Food and Agriculture table on the right)" - I'd prefer to just use the same citation as you use in the table itself.
 * Done. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)-- the D únadan  17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Expand first use of Tm to "metric tonne".
 * Done. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "(a significant source of revenue for the government, of almost 62 per cent of the company's sales)" - no need to parenthesise this.
 * Fixed.-- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Financial sector section has two citations in total, which may be enough, but the text is a bit dry with few wikilinks, perhaps look to improve this section a bit? Could consider IPO, American Depositary Receipt etc.
 * Will work on that. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "...March 31st 2006...." - WP:MOS for dates etc.
 * Fixed. -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope some of these comments are useful. Let me know if there's anything more I can offer. The Rambling Man 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very helpful! Thanks! -- the D únadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose—1a. I've copy-edited the lead to demonstrate that the whole article requires considerable, careful work by fresh eyes to satisfy the requirement for a "professional" standard of writing (and of formatting in the case of the overlinking). Why are simple years linked? Why dictionary terms such as industry? Can't see the point of linking all of those countries—what relevance will the reader get out of Canada? Nothing. Audit links throughout, and minimise to focus our readers on the important ones. Quite a lot of redundancy. Tony 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you like to be that "fresh eye" to work on the article to meet 1a? As for the relevance of Canada, being part of NAFTA, and this being an article about Economics, I think it is relevant. -- the D únadan 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Canada itself is relevant, but just tell me what in the Canada article you want to interrupt your readers to show them? At the very least, pipe it to the section on the Canadian economy, or to a separate article on that topic if one exists. Ration your links and they'll be more powerful, and not blue distractions. I don't edit FACs, but why don't you research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. Tony 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the avise. I'll compare the edit summaries of FA Economy of India. -- the D únadan 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Object — in addition to Tony's comments, Image:MEXICAN PESOS 1 by verzerk.jpg appears to be non-free, and Image:NAFTA.gif has no source or copyright information. References need to be formatted; I suggest using and other citation templates. In addition to the "standard" parameters, make sure you specify the language parameter for non-English references and the format parameter for PDFs.  Pagra  shtak  14:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've eliminated those two pictures. I am working in formatting references using the templates. Maybe presenting the article as an FA candidate was a hasty decision. I should have asked for a review. In any case, I will try to fix what you suggested today. -- the D únadan  15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All references have been reformatted using citations templates. Please note that when citing a book, which happens to be available online in PDF, the template does not specify format, so only the sources that refer exclusively to web pages do specify format (PPT or PDF). -- the D únadan 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Please use  on Spanish-language sources.  WP:DASH attention needed.  Please see WP:CITE/ES; most sources are not fully formatted.  Sources need a publihser and last access date, and author and date when available.  There are some completely unformatted refs, like ^ [2].  See also need not repeat terms linked in the text; for example, Mexico shouldn't be a See also in an article about Mexico.  The article is not thoroughly cited (Mexico has shown interest in becoming an associate member of Mercosur and  ... ?????)  Full dates (month day, year) should be wikilinked (see WP:MOSNUM).  Spanish terms should be in italics (see WP:MOS).  That's just a start; I haven't reviewed thoroughly.
 * Like I told the previous reviewer, I am in the process of changing the format of all references using templates. I'm half way through. From all your comments, it seems most of your concerns relate to style and format (if references are properly formatted, if dates are properly formatted, if non-English terms are properly formatted...). That can easily be fixed. At least there aren't any complaints about content (i.e. completeness, NPOV, etc.). -- the D únadan 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't examined the content yet (sorry :-), because there are structural items still to be addressed. I hope you're aware I have an inhouse expert who will be examining the content once all else is addressed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! I'd love to read the opinion and advise from an expert in economics. -- the D únadan 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not take my reference comments to mean that these are the only problems with the article. They are the only parts I reviewed. You say you're halfway through, but it doesn't appear so. I don't see "language=Spanish" parameters, most PDFs are not marked as such with "format=PDF", and you need to remove "format=html". Format is only used for non-HTML links. Many references are a simple titled link, and one reference even reads "[2]".  Pagra shtak  18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't take your comment to mean that those were the only problems, especially after you said you'll bring an expert to review it. That is why I said, I'd love the review of an expert. I don't know how else to say that I am halfway through when I am halfway through. When I started, no single reference used templates. Now half of them do, even if now some need to be corrected by adding the among other things. -- the D únadan  19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing me with Sandy.  Pagra shtak  22:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I apologize. -- the D únadan 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hola, Dúnadan &mdash; Back with more comments, after my "inhouse expert" reviewed your article. First, congratulations on a very very fine start; nothing but praise, although still work to be done. From my point of view, first the article is seriously undercited, to the extent that I'm not sure you'll make FA this time, but confident you'll eventually make it based on the quality of your start. Second, I saw lots of copy edit needs. Below, I will summarize the comments that are not mine, so if they don't make sense, I take no credit, and if you have questions, I'll have to get back to you :-) That's all for now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Regional economies, shares of GDP per sector, very surprised to see no mention of Monterrey, which is the industrial heart of the country. Where does it fit in?
 * Industry, agree on the quality standards in automobile industry, but that kind of statement demands a citation.
 * Industry, FEMSA no longer exists, was divested, check the text there. (Check Grupo Alfa for possible mention of another company).
 * Energy; 3.8 million BPD doesn't look accurate/current on oil production, double check more recent sources just to be sure. It has decreased from ... needs to be stated, because additional investment, exploratio, production, drilling is needed (problem discussed more below)
 * Services: Bancomer "associated to the Spanish BBVA", copy edit problem, believes the correct statement would say majority owned by BBVA.
 * Banking system; Important description/context needed. Until recently, Mexico had no significant mortgage banking (secularization of mortgages), and this has just started.  The ability of different economic groups to own homes via the new mortgage banking provisions should be discussed, and its likely impact.  Home ownership eventually creates wealth; this can be an escape from poverty.
 * Currency policy; noted that reserves weren't cited (but I note that most of the article isn't cited).
 * Monetary system: says you need to give more context, explaining the significance of their unorthodox and unique way of managing interest rates, because they do it for FX reasons, relate to importance of FX policy in all Latin American countries.
 * Trade: here, there are actually some problems.  You can't say Mexico is one of the most open countries (economies?) in the world, and cite that kind of info to a biased source (the Mexican Embassy), so take care that you are using the best and most objective sources.  Yes, Mexico is becoming a very open economy, but for example, energy and metals are government controlled, in desperate need of additional investment that could very well be supplied by the private sector, but it's not allowed.  Venezuela and Argentina &mdash; which are both currently more controlled economies &mdash; allow foreign investment in the energy area, as does Colombia.  But, yes, the economy has made tremendous progress towards opening.
 * NAFTA &mdash; serious citation needs, assure that high quality, independent, objective sources are used.
 * Missing info: the remittances to Mexico by unregistered immigrants in the US could be impacted by US legislative changes, which could change the whole picture.  Needs to be discussed.  This will could reduce remittances, which is the second most important FX earner for the Mexican economy.  The article can't be complete without a discussion of this potential remittances issue; the numbers are too big to ignore.
 * Hi Sandy, thank you, and your reviewer for your comments. I will look into fixing some of the stuff, but I also wanted to give an answer to some of the comments, for both the reviewer and any other user who might be reading:
 * GDP figures refer exclusively to states. Monterrey, as the capital of Nuevo León, does have quite a fame of being an industrial hub, and indeed it is, but despite the claims of its residents to be the industrial heart, it is not. Mexico City still is, or more properly, Greater Mexico City is. The industrial GDP of Greater Mexico City still surpasses that of Greater Monterrey; even the industrial GDP of Mexico City proper (Federal District only, less than half the population of the entire metro area) is greater than that of the entire state of Nuevo León (see figures in article). I believe the article is giving due weight to Monterrey's position as an important (arguably the second) most important industrial hub in the country, in which many headquarters of Mexican transnational companies are located. [Un]fortunately, the Mexican economy is, to a large degree (22% of the GDP) centralized in Greater Mexico City.
 * I will need to do some research on FEMSA. That text was written by another user who is from Monterrey. From what I found at their webpage they seem to be alive and kicking, but I know very little of the company. Alfa, definitely deserves to be included in that list.
 * I probably mistyped the comment when I said it "no longer exists". I think the gist is that most of it was divested, it's now a much smaller company, no longer the conglomerate as mentioned and the other Grupo company would now be a better example for your purposes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NAFTA; well I have received not so nice comments about that section since I first wrote it, but most of the sources that speak about how "terrible" NAFTA is come from secondary or tertiary sources, mainly newspapers and editorials. The three books I'm citing, one of the World Bank, another by the International Institute of Economics, and the third one written by many analysts from the three countries, were all critical, but agreed in that the positive economical effects have been greater than the negative effects. Being either primary sources, or reputable secondary sources citing primary sources, I give them much more credibility than newspaper articles and editorials.
 * As for the rest of your comments, I understand and agree. I will look into that. Thanks for the advise. Even if the article doesn't make it as an FA (at least not now), the quality of the article has and will continue to improve with your comments. Thanks!
 * -- the D únadan 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Some issues:
 * The MXN vs MXP discussion is hard to follow, and seems in outright error sometimes. What is the difference between MXN and MXP?  I assume MXN are "new pesos" and MXP are "old pesos" per the 1993 exchange; however the article then gives an exchange rate for MXP to USD??? Why would there be a US exchange rate for a defunct currency?  The section could use more explanation and cleanup for clarity.
 * Some sections seem underreferenced. Much of the Agriculture and food production section makes claims about agricultural production (see the first paragraph) that have no references.  Where does this information come from.  Several other places suffer from the same problem.
 * Print sources do not cite page numbers. If someone is to check your references, it seems reasonable to include what pages from the print sources they come from.
 * The article seems to lack comprehensiveness. No treatment is given to certain key issues in the Mexican economy which are prevalent in the press; the loss of Mexican manufacturing jobs to China has been in the news, even in the U.S.  Emmigration to the U.S. has had a PROFOUND effect on the economy in Mexico; several well researched books have been published on the subject in just the past year; yet this article gives no treatment to it.  The article ignores some well-publicized and widely published facets of the Mexican economy, and it seems for want in those areas.
 * The article seems to be not quite FA ready. It is huge, and I can respect that, but it is a huge topic and lacks the comprehensiveness I would expect from an FA.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The MXN and MXP was a mistake, it has been corrected. The exchange rate refers to MXN.
 * Page numbers to printed sources can also be added, that is a minor issue.
 * As for the emigration of Mexicans to the US and its "profound" effect of the economy, I don't quite see your point. I am not defending the FA status of this article, but maybe you can point the editors to some of these "well researched" books. The impact, however, is mentioned in the Remittances section, and given its due weight. It speaks about the states which receive the greatest amount of remittances and talks about the economics of the phenomenon. The political and social issues of the phenomenon are discussed in Demography_of_Mexico. Perhaps a link to that article would be appropriate, but I wouldn't elaborate on non-economical issues here.
 * Emigration has a much more widespread effect on economy than remitances. The economic effect on the loss of male labor has been well covered.  This has been a big part of the scholarship on the economy of Mexico in recent years and its ommission in this article is glaring.  See this page from NPR to see the issue's treatment in mainstream press.  This site has a long bibliography of migration issues; several of these works deal with the economic impact of labor movement into the U.S.  To claim that the only impact of emigration from Mexico to the U.S. is the return of cash in the form of remittances seems a less than comprehensive treatment of the issue.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the links you provided. The first shows the social aspect of emigration (e.g. "ghost towns", "communities torn apart", "migrants leave kids") and political aspects (e.g. Immigration laws). All of that is quite relevant, but arguably, does not belong to an article about Economics, but Demographics, or even a specific article on Emigration from Mexico to the United States. The second link you provided has a list of books mostly related to social and cultural issues, but not to the Economic effects of emigration.
 * I do think there is more to emigration vis-à-vis economics than merely remittances, but none of the above relates to it. I believe I once read an article that suggested that emigration to the United States reduced labor supply in Mexico, thus having a positive impact on wages. (Or to put in other words: real wages would have been lower without the emigration given that labor supply is larger than demand, or the employment opportunities being generated). This would be an economic effect of emigration. But ghost towns, families torn apart and the like, should be mentioned, if at all, in Demography of Mexico. -- the D únadan 21:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it still seems incomplete. You yourself said that you have an article describing wage effects (a REAL economic factor) of emigration.  I also remember a broadcast I saw/heard (it was either NPR or CSPAN BookTV) that talked about the collapse of native agriculture (a REAL economic effect) due to the loss of male labor to work corn fields that was a direct result of emigration.  My point wasn't really about any one issue; it was that the article seems to give the economic impact of emigration the short end; it only briefly mentions remittances (which some people claim doesn't really amount to much economic impact at all) and does not mention other effects, such as labor shortage, agricultural effects, microeconomic factors effecting women left behind, all of these are real economic effects.  There may be more; I am neither an economist nor am I well versed in any aspect of Mexican society; however this article seems less than comprehensive since it gives so LITTLE treatment to emigration.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern for completeness, but I still disagree with both your appreciation and your approach. I recommend that you review the 4 external sources used for that section. For starters, remittances are by far the most important economic aspect of emigration in the short and in the long run, given its sheer economic value: they are the second largest largest source of foreign income, larger than foreign direct investment. I haven't read a singe economist who would dare to say that remittances does not amount to much economic impact! If you consider how important is FDI for economic growth, you'd see that it is astonishing to consider that income received through remittances is similar or even larger. In percentage points, remittances represent 2.5% of the country's GDP, which is larger than the share of some of the constituent states production to national GDP, and 20% of the total value of exports as calculated in the current account, which even though they are not enough to make it a surplus, they do reduce the deficit by a large amount. The World Bank has even suggested that remittances have been one of the driving forces behind rural poverty reduction (i.e. agricultural) from more than 40% to 27% in 2004. But these facts are already mentioned in the article.
 * Now, please keep in mind that the [economic] effects of emigration are very hard to quantify, especially if you wish to imply causality. For example, it would be very hard to prove that the purported collapse of agriculture (a very disputable and qualitative claim in itself given that even corn production, the most sensitive produce, has not fallen over the last 14 years, and horticulture has quadrupled) was caused directly by emigration and not by say [all true, btw]: (1) the real decline of world prices in agricultural products, arguably caused by subsidies in developed nations, (2) the abrupt openness of the agricultural market within NAFTA concurrent with the economic debacle of 1994, (3) lack of substantial support to peasants to modernize agriculture, (4) the fragmentation of land under the communal ejido concept. I might even dare to say that the agricultural inefficiencies are the cause of most of the emigration to the US and not viceversa.
 * Now, as for the rest of the effects you mention there is no labor shortage. Like I pointed out before, it is has been argued that the excess of labor in relation to available jobs (or lack thereof) is driving emigration. And again, I don't think this is the place to talk about the qualitative aspects of emigration, important as they might be to the Mexican society. However, considering that remittances are given a whole section, I don't think that "very little" is said about the economic effects of emigration. After all the article should not speak of emigration per se, this is not Demography of Mexico.
 * I can add more information about the economic effect of emigration, but I'd prefer to do it from an economic analysis point of view, and not a social, cultural or demographic point of view.
 * -- the D únadan 06:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, your last comment is a little vague. You said that the article ignores well-publicized and widely facets. Could you be more specific as to which facets you are referring to so the editors can include them?
 * -- the D únadan 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I gave the article a fresh readthrough. I am mostly talking out of my ass up there.  Not sure what got me off on that tangent, but all of my serious fixes were made.  Looking at Dunadan's comments, he's right.  The article really does address the info adequately.  I see no reason to further withhold my support. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Minor object. Why the history section starts with 20th century, when the Economic history of Mexico mentions (if too briefly) 19th? Since History of Mexico shows that the country traditions are much older, those periods should be discussed as well. Economy of Mexico did not start in the 20th century.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What relation do historical traditions have with the economy? History of Mexico goes back for millennia, yet very little of what has occurred, even during colonial times, historically speaking could explain the intricacies of today's Mexican economy. (An economy doesn't start; the economy is always present in a society; today's economy however might bear little to no relation to the barter practiced a thousand years ago either in Mexico or in Europe, even if the events eventually led to the formation of capitalism in the latter). Elaborating on how the economy worked during Pre-Columbian times, while interesting, would best fit in an article about the Economic history of Mexico. Moreover, Mexican economy today, for good and for bad, is to a much greater degree the product of the radical transformation of the country during and after the Mexican Revolution, hence it seems appropriate to start the section on that particular event in time and the economic reasons that caused such a movement. If the reader wishes to deepen his/her knowledge about the Economic History of Mexico, they can be redirected to the appropriate article. In a similar way, the History section in many articles about countries and economies elaborate on recent events and simply summarize or even omit events that occurred thousand of years ago unless they help explain to a large degree some characteristics of today's society/economy. -- the D únadan  22:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.