Talk:The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 19:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for submitting this article to GAN. Upon looking through this article, I will have to quick-fail this article per WP:GAFAIL criteria #1 "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Reading through this article, it sounds like an essay while also having Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch issues in terms of editorializing, and weasal words.

Editorializng issues (Chapters)

• "Instead, Krugman recommends printing money"
• "In contrast, Krugman advocates for the time"
• "Consequently, loose monetary policy led to irrational investor behaviour and the stock bubble burst. "
• "Here, Krugman strongly advocates for fiscal expenditure"
• "That is, the government should run deficits to stimulate the economy"

Weasel words [Chapters]

• "An idea (the liquidity trap), not acknowledged by neoclassical and orthodox economist" - who doesn't believe this?
• "This shadow banking system was the root of the global financial crisis and current financial crisis and as such should be regulated" - Krugman or someone else believes this?

Weasel words [Critical reception]

• "A common criticism of Krugman’s policy recommendation"
• "Some economists claim that Krugman’s casual treatment of concepts"
• "may lack scientific rigour according to some economist" - which economists believe these points?
• "Krugman’s recommendation to incorporate behavioural economics into new models is not novel" - according to who? Who made these recommendations beforehand?
• "It is difficult to draw accurate policy recommendations in a book targeted towards the public" - tone is inappropriate.

Paragraph issues

• Political Intention and Significance for Geography sections do not have any attribution for these opinions. Are these opinions by Klagge & Fomhold-Eisebith or the Wikipedia editor? Examples of sentences that don't sound neutral include:
  • "Given the broad reach of Krugman’s book the academic merit of this book may be limited."
  • "his book perhaps highlights the gap between 'real’ economic geography and world events"
• Ongoing impact section also does not sound neutral as there's no attribution. Did Wanniarachchige or the Wikipedia editor say these opinions?. An example of a non-netural sentence is:
  • "Krugman’s book can be considered thought-provoking"

Prose issues

• Rankin, Cochrane, Keynes, Ritenour and Hick should link to their full names. Not everyone who reads this page will be familiar with these people.
• The first mention of Rankin should not link to his ResearchGate page.
• The first mention of Ritenour should not link to his FEE page.

Verification issues

• Background - Paul Krugman section paragraph #1 is fully uncited (5 sentences).
• Content - Introduction section is uncited (1 sentence).
• Critical Reception - Free Market Perspectives section last sentence is uncited (1 sentence).

Spelling issues

• " not acknowledged by neoclassical and orthodox economist" -> economists
• "This misguided policy, Krugman suggest," -> suggests

Summary

While I have not performed an in-depth GAN Review, I am very concerned with the tone of this article for Criteria #4 neutrality. There are 3 entire sections that are not attributed to any authors and suggests this is the Wikipedia editor's own opinion. There are also weasel words & Editorializng issues mainly in the Chapters section. Per WP:IMPARTIAL, this article should be in a summary format. I suggest naming who said these untattributed points while also avoiding writing the article as "Krugman said this, another person disagrees" format. The reception section, for example, sounds like an analysis of Krugman's opinions instead of reception of the entire book.

Otherwise, I do see a paragraph of uncited content in the Background - Paul Krugman section, while also seeing some other uncited and typoed parts as well. Based on the neturality issues alone, this article needs a lot of work before it can be renominated for GAN. Once these issues are fixed, then this article can be renominated. Thank you for nominating this article at GAN. I hope you are encouraged to work through these issues :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.