Wikipedia:Peer review/List of the richest people ever/archive1

List of the richest people ever

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it needs your support and improvement in the following areas:


 * Inadequate lead.
 * Poorly formatted table.
 * Very few sources, which include several wikipedia pages, which is a huge no-no.
 * If the main source is this list, then the rest of the table is original research because that list only includes Americans.
 * Standardization: Why are some 'company' and some 'main source', and sometimes 'company' is used when no company is actually there? (A monarchy, for example)
 * Poorly formatted; not really tabular at all. Many of these can be made into columns. In the process, you would change the image format from thumbnails to portraits.
 * The Fuggers. Source for this is the talk page. Absolutely unacceptable. Likewise, two other refs are links to Wikipedia; again, unacceptable.
 * Finally, the complaint on the talk page, while poorly made, is valid - "wealthiest" is the proper form, not "most wealthy".

Quote from Raul654 (talk): I noticed this because it was first nominated on the FAC. I was pretty surprised that Croesus (who could very well be the richest man who ever lived and whose name is literally synonymous with wealth) wasn't on the list. Admittedly, the list does say that "their wealth is hard to estimate and the ancient historical figures [sic] are scarce in numbers on the lists." - however, this seems to be a cop-out. Essentially, it says that because you can't establish an exact valuation or CPI for those times, you can ignore them. I think that's poor methodology.

Thanks, Bugnot (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this for two reasons:
 * 1) Most importantly, it is not an article, it is a redirect to another article (which the nominator just listed at Peer Review too). There is nothing to review here.
 * 2) Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)