Wikipedia:Peer review/Jevons paradox/archive2

Jevons paradox
I'm planing on taking this article to FA status. Before listing it as a FA candidate, I'll appreciate it if someone could give it a look over and point to what should be improved.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, LK (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
This is not my sphere by any means, but the article was perfectly comprehensible even to me. The prose is clear and generally elegant. Some minor comments: That's my lot. Please ping me when you take the article to FAC. –  Tim riley  talk    13:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There was, I thought, one phrase with a slightly stilted textbook feel: "causing resource use to increase" could be, in everyday English, "causing more resources to be used." That's my only quibble on style.
 * You need to decide how to punctuate the abbreviation e.g. (or e.g, – both logically justifiable, but consistency is wanted).
 * There is a handful of duplicate links in the article. The Manual of Style bids us limit ourselves to one link to any article from the lead and another link to it from the main text. You have two links from the lead to demand and two to sustainability. In the main text there are duplicate links to green taxes and ecological economics.
 * "cost (or price) of a good or service" – can you really have a singular good in this sense? I consulted the OED but lost the will to live about five pages in and never found the relevant bit. I see the word crops up twice, and so I take it that it is a pukka term in economics.
 * References
 * As the Jevons book is a book, it would be as well to give its OCLC number in lieu of the ISBN for which it is too ancient to qualify. The OCLC is 464772008.
 * There is a guideline – how authoritative I know not – that would have us use the 13-digit forms of ISBNs. If you are minded to follow it, there is a handy tool here.
 * When you get to FA, some bright spark is highly likely to ask what the point is of your "Additional reading" list, saying that if the stuff is worth reading it should be used in the text. This is nonsense, but I suggest you have your counter-argument nicely honed and ready.


 * That's all very useful, thanks very much! I'll implement your suggestions and then submit to FAC. LK (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)