Talk:Permanent income hypothesis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Card Carrying Parrot (talk · contribs) 00:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin reviewing the article. Give me a good 3-7 days. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

Prose:

The prose is clear and concise
Summarizes the article quite well

WP:MOS:

~~Needs better Accessibility (eg. add !scope to table)~~Y Done
~~Needs alt captions~~Y Done
~~Although this is not necessarily a shortcoming, I would recommend merging 'simple model' and 'extensions'~~Y Done

Reference Layout:

Everything is provided for easy access to look at (ISBN, JSTOR, DOI, ISSN, CiteSeerX)
No issues here

WP:RS:

Excellent sourcing (all sources are WP:RS; all are from academic sources)
Every paragraph is backed up by a source (except for the section with math in it)

WP:NOR:

No original research is present

Broadness:

Covers the topic well
No major aspects omitted

Focus:

No issues here; is quite focused on the article itself, not other things

Neutral:

Includes a criticism section, and presents a wide variety of viewpoints

Stable:

This is usually an automatic pass, but on this one it looks like there are only a few editors who actively have done anything on the page, outside of the nominator, so it is especially true that it holds no issues here

Images:

Text is supported by images
No copyright violations

@buidhe sorry to ping you, but does this review look okay? Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Card Carrying Parrot I think this is a good start, but I also think that some additional scrutiny is merited for topics that are controversial. For example, for evaluating the neutrality you note that the article "Includes a criticism section, and presents a wide variety of viewpoints". First of all, it's good practice to combine praise and criticism into a reception section for NPOV. Second of all, I would try to make sure the article creator is representing the sources correctly, instead of imposing his own viewpoint. For example, I checked the last source cited in the article and was unable to WP:VERIFY that it supported the content. You also want to check: does the article represent fairly mainstream views in economics, or is it slanted towards particular views? Here, a Google Scholar search can be helpful. Likewise, original research can be hard to spot without double checking at least some of the references. (This article claims "In an earlier study, Friedman, Kuznets (1945), he makes the case for a similar conception of income"—citing Friedman Kuznets 1945. But who says it's similar? No source is cited so it must be WP:OR).
That's why WP:Reviewing good articles says to double-check the sources: "At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means."
Sourcing: Academic sources are often reliable, but be on the lookout for predatory journals or others that don't publish mainstream views for their field. For example, Mises Institute is considered generally unreliable at WP:RSN, although it may be acceptable to cite for the views of the Mises Institute or its writers.

I cited an academic journal from the Mises Institute, which is peer reviewed, and only used it to cite the views of Austrians

I would apply a lot of scrutiny to statements like, "Unresolved inconsistencies explain the failure of transitory Keynesian demand management techniques to achieve its policy targets". Is it a total failure or simply not completely successful? When in doubt, attribute to the person who said it: "Meghir states that unresolved inconsistencies..." Likewise, "The permanent income hypothesis has evidence supporting such a view..." what evidence? Who thinks it supports the hypothesis?

I cite a study (Shapiro et al), and say so in the text (also added "According to Costas Meghir")

The footnotes present information without giving a reliable source. Therefore, I added citation needed tags.

Done

Check that you fully understand the article and it doesn't contain unnecessary jargon; the GA criteria requires "understandable to an appropriately broad audience". The article does use acronyms without ever explaining what they are, such as "APC" and "MPC" in the table, or "MPS". It also uses difficult to understand language, such as "Nonrelief nonfarm families".

The "Nonrelief farm families" as an example (read: entire table) was copied from (Friedman 1957); MPC, APC, and MPS are linked (and I will add an explanatory footnote to every instance of usage)

Excessive quotations are used, which can harm neutrality and length and lead to copyright issues. Especially since there's no source cited to connect the second block quote with the subject of this article. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]