Wikipedia:Featured article review/Supply and demand

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Avsa and B&E. Sandy (Talk) 16:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

First time I'm nominating an article for FAR, so let me know if I've done something wrong. Anyway, the article is currently unsourced (no inline citations at all!) and the images lack captions. Also, what is Wikipedia's policy on how "textbookish" an article of this scope should be? Gzkn 06:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are partially right about the citations, and I'll try to put some in if I have time. However, check Scientific citation guidelines - the arguments in there suggest that much less inline citations are needed than one would expect; i.e. common economics knowledge, which could be found in dozens of textbooks (which is most of this article) do not need inline citations. Also right about the images. Aside, what do you mean by "textbookish"? AdamSmithee 09:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Scientific" "guidelines" is a disputed proposal (I stopped trying to get my dispute tag to stick). It has not received widespread review by most areas of Wiki "science", and is a continuation of an effort started on WP:CITE by a few math/physics editors to have different citing requirements for their articles.  It has been explained to them many times that lowering their internal citing requirements could exempt their articles from FA or GA.  It does not override WP:WIAFA or WP:V.  Sandy (Talk) 14:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lack of inline references and mixing reference section with external links is certainly a ground for defeaturing. In addition, there are small issues that should be addressed, like excessive bolding, or stub-sections 'Empirical estimation, Application in Macroeconomics'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 06:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Remove. Completely uncited, weasle words, rambling and unorganized.  Sandy (Talk) 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments Many problems besides just a lack of citations. Some random examples:
 * Examples of conspicuous consumption are clearly subjective, but might include the Bugatti Veyron. The social phenomenon often referred to as 'Bling' can also be thought of in this way. And it consumes demand and supply without error Some trivial examples (and Bugatti Veyron is a bit esoteric). Last sentence doesn't make sense.
 * If they do not move at all then they will stay in the middle where they already are. Does this need mentioning?
 * If you do not wish to calculate elasticity, a simpler technique is to look at the slope of the curve. Oh boy. Addressing readers is OK in a textbook, but probably not so much in an encyclopedia. Gzkn 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Remove. Apart from being completely uncited, as an economics student, the article fails 1.b. In my opinion, it neglects major facts and details; for instance, the "Supply" and "Demand" explanation are not satisfactory to me. As for If you do not wish to calculate elasticity, a simpler technique is to look at the slope of the curve...um, most of the times it's a really hard thing to do. The article assumes it is always obvious. Hmm, I might work on this article someday. Nat91 13:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove due to citation issues. Also, the intro isn't accessible to any reader (I couldn't fully understand it). LuciferMorgan 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)