Talk:Adam Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Adam 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.


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)

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)