Talk:Adam Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Former good article nomineeAdam Smith was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 14, 2008WikiProject peer reviewCollaborated
June 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 13, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 10, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 13, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adam Smith/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 06:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Birthday[edit]

His birthday is today... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.164.21.141 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Jamesx12345, thank you for bringing this article to the GA review process. Unfortunately, I have decided to fail the nomination for the reasons that I list below. I noticed that you had not edited the article recently, so I suggest that you attempt the revise the article as much as you can before you re-nominate it for GA status.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The article relies on too many quotations without explaining their significance. See WP:QUOTEFARM for further advice.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Unresolved "citation needed" tag in the section on The Wealth of Nations.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I think the "Criticism and Dissent" section should be further developed. Currently it consists mostly of one long quotation.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Please let me know if you have any questions. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I am afraid I am guilty of a fly-by nomination, as I came across this article thinking it was quite good and worthy of a nomination, having been improved a lot since it was last reviewed. There are some useful pointers here to be acted on in the future. Regards, Jamesx12345 (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)