Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tulip mania


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:26, 18 August 2008.

Tulip mania

 * Nominator(s): JayHenry (talk), Smallbones 

Tulip mania, the first chapter in the book of bubbles, newly relevant in the wake of the current subprime mortgage crisis. This should be registered as a co-nomination with User:Smallbones who was the article's capable custodian for a few years before I arrived, and who has helped with all the reworking of the last few weeks. Thanks also to our very capable GA reviewers Dr. Khoo and Protonk. Final thank you to User:Casliber who helped fill in the gaps with the Dash book. I should also note a few vandelisms from User:Coiel occurred but were swiftly reverted. This is a surprisingly controversial topic that we've worked hard to get into neutral form. I look forward to working with everyone in the next week or so to get this fully across the line. JayHenry (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: All the images have the proper copyrights, tagging, etc. Calor (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  - I'll begin here . Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, in the very first paragraph we have 'Mania' in small letters, then in caps. Not sure which you wanna go with, Uppercase then lowercase?


 * Mackay's account of inexplicable mania was long accepted. - "unchallenged"?


 * Tulip mania again became a popular referent  - 'reference'?


 * I actually meant referent, but I guess that's possibly a bit pedantic and reference means more or less the same thing in that sentence, so I'm okay with the change. --JayHenry (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise looks pretty good. Getting the name consistent is easy but important. Have at it. I think we'll be over the line once there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks - unchallenged reference mania Smallbones (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comments Great work, – Quadell (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fascinating article. I love this topic. Good prose.
 * It looks to me like the lead spends an inordinate amount of space on the controversy. 1 paragraph is about tulip mania, 1 is about Mackay's book, and 2 on refutations. It seems to me that Mackay and especially his critics deserve fewer lead inches.
 * The article is similar. You don't want this to be an article about criticism of Mackay, with tulip mania only included as background. I'm not sure it's proportionate.
 * There's very little on the aftermath of the burst bubble. The "history" section spends exactly one sentence on the collapse. I remember reading in "The Botany of Desire" that angry Dutch people would destroy tulips on sight after the collapse, leading to many varieties' extinction. If I'm remembering that correctly, and it can be sourced, then it certainly belongs in the article.
 * Some of the factual material in the Mackay section (e.g. Dutch government response) belongs in History, it seems to me. "Available price data" might go in history as well, since it's about what happened, not about criticism of Mackay's analysis.
 * "The Botany of Desire" is a NYT best-seller, and a quarter of the book is about tulip mania. Is it worth a mention in the article?
 * That's an interesting (but for me dispiriting) way of phrasing it, Quadell. Had you asked me I'd have said 1 is about the mania, 1 is about Mackay and 2 is about the economics.  Tulip mania is not important, nor particularly interesting, geopolitically, or botanically, or nationally, or what have you.  It is, however, a seminal chapter of economic history.  How to interpret this economically is the entire point.  Same goes for the article.  This article is a prism to important (and I hoped, though I see perhaps naively, interesting) economic concepts.  If you say the Tulip Mania is background then I fear I have irreparably failed.  Tulip Mania, you see, is not really about flowers--in fact, not a single tulip changed hands during the whole mania!--although I did give them a great deal of attention.  This article is about futures. --JayHenry (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, what I like about the topic is that there are so many ways of viewing it. For the record, what I find most interesting is not the geography, botany, history, or even about the economics or finance (including futures).  It's the psychology, the delusions; that is the delusions of people who have taken Mackay too seriously - Extra Pop Delu is a great read, but doubtful scholarship.  As an encyclopdia article, of course, it can be about all the above.  I'll quibble with Quadell on the aftermath - I haven't seen any reliable material on the aftermath, and your description sounds a bit iffy to me.  But if you have reliable info please add it.  Smallbones (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've not read the Pollan book. I knew a quarter was about tulips, but didn't know he focused on the tulip mania for the entire section (I assumed it was mentioned more or less in passing).  Pollan is a talented 21st century food journalist.  The idea that people would wantonly destroy all tulips is the sort of thing that doesn't really pass the sniff test.  I'm sure in 2408 a talented journalist of some sort will talk about how the city of New York took their copy machines and computers into a field and beat them with baseball bats, outraged that the dotcom bubble] was bursting, and computers had led to their ruin.  --JayHenry (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I moved the "Available data" up to the history section. I'd think some trimming of the last 1 or 2 paragraphs in the lede might work - but I'd better check with my conominator - we shouldn't go back and forth on it. BTW, another thing I like about this topic is that it seems to arouse some passion. Thanks to everybody for the feedback. Smallbones (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I went and bought a copy of Pollan this evening. Am reading tonight to see if anything is worth adding.  Quadell, apologies if I seemed combative initially.  (Unrelatedly, I was surprised to see that the Goldgar book in paperback is going to be in stock at Barnes and Noble in September--maybe it'd be worth mentioning the manias foray into popular non-fiction?) --JayHenry (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read the tulip chapter in Pollan. It's really an essay about beauty that uses tulipomania as a jumping point for Pollan's musings.  (It's a very well done essay, $13 well spent.)  But as with the other sources it doesn't detail economic ruin following tulipomania other than to baldly state Tulipomania "nearly brought its economy to ruin" (p. 63), that several anti-speculative pamphlets were published (p. 104) and that a single professor supposedly beat tulips (p. 105).  He does not attribute extinction to angry hordes. --JayHenry (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I've read this a few times now along they way, and think its very fine. While I'd prefer that it mentioned at some stage that "Sean is teh gay" (thanks for that wonderful credit in your nom, Henry), I still believe its good enough. Grand work. Ceoil  sláinte 20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-written with clear explanations of an economic concepts. --maclean 01:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I don't know if it's appropriate for me to comment here, as I also commented on the GA and have been actively editing the page since. But my two-cents anyway, it's a fine article, well-researched, gets all the economics concepts correct, and presents opposing viewpoints in an NPV language. As for the weight given to Mackay and modern critiques, I feel it is appropriate, since Tulip mania has become synonymous with speculative bubbles, the economic interpretations of the event are as important as the event itself. lk (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments on images
 * Image:Semper Augustus Tulip 17th century.jpg - The source link does not work for this image. Also, the description of this image is not entirely clear. It says Great Tulip Book - was that published in the 17th century? If so, could we please have complete publication information?


 * Image:Admiral Verijck (van der Eijck).jpg - The image description needs to include a specific description of the type of tulip and any more information on the catalogue that is available.


 * Image:Tulip price index.svg - This image needs to indicate where the information for the chart was obtained.


 * Image:Tulipomania.jpg - Is there any other publication information known about this tulip book that could be included as part of the "Source" to help users find it?


 * Image:Bollenveld Hillegom.JPG - We need to verify that Joris van Rooden, who made the picture, is User:Joris1919, who uploaded it and released the rights.

These issues should be relatively easy to fix! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done all. --JayHenry (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The last one is not yet done. Awadewit (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He identifies himself as the author on his user page. This is linked in the upload log on commons. --JayHenry (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I just blind? I don't see a link on the image description page anywhere. We have to have a link. Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably looking on Wikipedia and not on Commons. Not all information is transcluded, such as the file history where this was linked.  At any rate, I added an additional link. --JayHenry (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comments This was an enjoyable article and I am so happy that the editors have worked on it. Tulip mania is definitely a subject people are going to look up! I just have some small prose issues along with the image issues I've already posted:


 * There is a paragraph in the middle of the "History" section that interrupts the flow of the description of the tulips. It describes some of the financial background and begins The Dutch, who developed many of the techniques of modern finance, created a market for durable tulip bulbs..' - Perhaps some reorganization is in order?
 * I moved and reworked this paragraph to after the biology of the tulips, transitioning into the economics. Hopefully this works better. --JayHenry (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The stubby paragraph which begins As the flowers grew in popularity needs to be integrated into one of the surrounding paragraphs.
 * Integrated. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This trade was centered in Haarlem during the height of a bubonic plague epidemic. - This sentence seems a bit random.
 * Implicit here was the idea that societal uncertainty so often contributes to market uncertainty. I clarified the specific claim from Garber. --JayHenry (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The layout of the "Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions" section looks strange on my screen. To the right of the chart is a large white space under the tulip image.
 * I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The chart is right aligned so I don't understand how anything could be to the right of it.  It looks normal on both my monitors. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a problem with the table margins. I've fixed it. lk (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It still looks wrong on my screen. I've uploaded a screenshot here. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's odd, I can't recreate that error. But I think moving the image down the page will fix this.  See if it's better now. --JayHenry (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks much worse now. The tulip and chart are piled on top of each other on the left hand side of the screen. Want a new screenshot? Awadewit (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry! We were still tinkering with it.  I tried adjusting one of the table parameters, that I think will fix this for any browser.  Any good? --JayHenry (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Much better. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the "Mackay" section do not indicate that "Mackay argued". This should probably be added, since his argument is disputed later on.
 * Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mackay's account of inexplicable mania was long unchallenged. However, recent research - How long? How recent?
 * Clarified. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we a little leary of quoting Mike Dash?
 * Depends if we mean Leary or Leary :) I dunno, Cas, Smallbones, Lawrence, what do you think?  The quote no longer applies since the Goldgar book has been published since. --JayHenry (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed it. More leery of 1999 than of Dash. --JayHenry (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Garber compared this data to hyacinth prices at the beginning of the 19th century - "this data" does not have a clear referent
 * Fixed. lk (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of "Legal changes" should be integrated into the section - it is a bit stubby.
 * Reorganized. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of the backlash against tulip mania, such as the anti-speculative pamphlets which were later reported by Beckmann and Mackay, were not written by victims of a bubble, but were primarily religiously motivated - awkward wording
 * Reworded. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Caption: A modern-day field of tulips in Hillegom, Netherlands—tulips have remained popular despite their colorful history. - despite or because of?
 * Despite is correct, I believe. lk (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The "References" section uses two different styles of web retrieval dates. Choose one.
 * Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not fixed. Awadewit (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Had missed a couple that were in the notes section. I looked at this closely.  If I'm still missing any can you please point me to where.  Or if it's faster to fix, please feel welcome. --JayHenry (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has fixed the last one. Awadewit (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Hooper reference is missing page numbers.
 * Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mackay reference is missing publication information.
 * Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Malkiel reference is missing a publication location.
 * Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Shiller reference is missing a publication location.
 * Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, some missing endashes on page ranges, I put in a request to Brighterorange to run his script to fix them. Some dates in citations are linked, others not.  This won't hold up promotion, but I leave the note to raise awareness.  Also, per several past pleas from User:Rick Block, a reminder about the order of items in the lead, per WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:LAYOUT.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.