Wikipedia:Peer review/Adam Smith/archive1

Adam Smith

• 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on it so that one day it can be submitted to WP:FAC.

Thanks, Gary King (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs)

I've done a quick peer review, trying to outline major issues that the editors need to address as they work towards FA. This article is a good start, but much more work will need to be put into it before it is ready for FAC. I look forward to helping out! Here is my first list of suggestions:

• I think that some more research needs to go into this article. I would start with the Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith, which has a chapter on all of Smith's major ideas and a very helpful bibliography. It will guide you to all of the major works on Smith.

• I'm concerned that the article focuses on WN and TMS to the exclusion of Smith's other writings. Though less famous, these deserve some space!

• The lead needs to be a true summary of the article per WP:LEAD. It is currently a bit disorganized and lacks substantial information about his life.

• Almost every section of the "Biography" feels like it could be expanded. Many facts are given, but not enough historical context. I feel like a reader without knowledge of the eighteenth century would struggle to understand Smith's place in the intellectual firmament described.

• The entire "Personality and beliefs" section should be scrapped and any important information integrated into the "Biography" where appropriate. People's personalities are not static, so it is important not to describe them as such. Moreover, some of this information is trivial.

• It seems like the Theory of Moral Sentiments should be discussed first in the "Published works" section, since it was written first.

• The "Wealth of Nations" section is largely uncited.

• The quotations from the Wealth of Nations should be worked seamlessly into the section, not appended as "famous quotes".

• The "Legacy" section needs to foreground the important material and place the less important material (e.g. English money) at the end. Trivial legacies should be removed.

• I would recommend removing the subjective fields from the infobox - these are too debatable and listing names and concepts does not explain Smith's relationship to them. Anything important should be explained in the article.

• All people named in the article need to be identified somehow so that reader knows who they are - just a phrase or a word will do.

• There are uncited quotations in the article.

• There is a great deal of repetitive linking in the article.

• The article needs the attention of several good copy editors - the writing is choppy and repetitive at times. However, this should wait until the major revisions are complete.

I hope that these suggestions are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs

If someone else already brought up any of my points... too bad, I'm still going to bring them up.

• Lead needs expansion; is the final paragraph going to be his legacy? The paragraph for the bio should sum up his entire life.
• Obviously, the citations needed will have to get fixed.
• Explain to us dunderheads what certain terms mean for example "His lectures covered the fields of ethics, rhetoric, jurisprudence, political economy, and "police and revenue"." police and revenue?

I'll dump more concerns later, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • http://econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Rae/raeLS10.html this ref looks like an online reprint of a originally printed work. Probably best to give the original publication data like a book, and give a convience link to the online version.
  • Per WP:MOS all capitals shouldn't be used, even when the webpage title is in all captials. (current ref 48 is an example)
  • What makes http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=37&item=biography a reliable source?
  • Current ref 53 is an external link. I think you borked the internal linking?
  • What makes http:// www.oocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/mf7.html a reliable source?
  • Current ref 78 is lacking a publisher (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050206/default.htm)
  • Same for current ref 79 (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0507/086.html)
  • Current refs 83 and 84 have just a plain external link in them, they need to be formatted with a title at the very very least.
  • You list Chomsky, Year 501, but there is no entry matching that in the bibliography.
  • Current ref 86 combines the two above problems, since there is no bibliographical details on the Chomsky work and it has a plain unformatted external link.
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • Obviously you need to expand the section with the big "please help expand this section".

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 17:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)