Talk:Abenomics/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 09:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I plan to review this article over the next few days. Interesting topic, but I do think there are definitely some hurdles to overcome before passing. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 12, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article has quite a few problems with how it's written. For instance, quantitative easing, one of the pillars of abenomics, is never explained. Furthermore, many paragraphs are only one sentence long.

2. Verifiable?: The accuracy is severly hampered by the fact that the article is outdated. There are sentences like: there is a rising skepticism regarding Abenomics, with a reference to 2013. Unlikely that it's still rising. Another example: Although a revised figure might be significantly different to this figure, it is possible that, in the first quarter of 2016, the Japanese economy will fall into the second recession in Abe administration.: by now we do have the numbers for 2016.

3. Broad in coverage?: I think the implementation section and the lede need expansion. For the lede: a sentence or two about whether it worked or not would be useful, as would be a few sentences about the debate. For the implementation: the lede stated that Abenomics were a combination of monetary easing, fiscal stimulus and structural reforms. I think that section would benefit from having these three subsections and some examples of how the government tackled those.

4. Neutral point of view?: No obvious signs of POV

5. Stable?: Yes

6. Images?: Images are somewhat outdated. Readability would improve if they are put next to the text instead of taking up the entire rows.

The main contributor to the article, User:Annihilation00 has not shown any activity since 2017. To the nominator: I hope this feedbacks gives you some indication of how this article can be improved for GA status. I'm probably willing to go over the article again if it's renominated after some work.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)