Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marshall Plan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Marshall Plan

Self nom. I originally launched a major expansion of this article a couple of years ago, after I was assigned a project on the subject in Margaret Macmillan's Cold War history seminar, if I may be permitted some low level name dropping. I recently returned to it and feel that I have brought it up to FA standards. It has gone through peer review, and the concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 20:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. This one is worth voting from vacation for. I was very impressed upon first seeing it on peer review. I don't know the subject well enough to vouch for that, but it is clearly well researched and written. Incidentally have you asked if Prof Macmillan would review the article? - Taxman Talk 21:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment—The map at the top immediately raises the question: what was the rationale behind the unequal distribution of funds? Why, for example, did Ireland receive a pittance, and the UK the most, despite the relatively weak position of the Irish economy? The text needs a run-through to fix up many minor aspects of the language. Tony 01:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The disbursement is explained in the Expenditures section. It notes that "the Marshall Plan aid was divided among the participant states on a roughly per capita basis. A larger amount was given to the major industrial powers, as the prevailing opinion was that their resuscitation was essential for a general European revival. Somewhat more aid per capita was also directed towards the Allied nations, with less for those that had been part of the Axis or remained neutral." These factors would explain the relatively small amount given to Ireland. - SimonP 01:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support
    • Few points:
    • Benelux countries -- the three countries should be mentioned
    • Dean Acheson and Jean Monnet -- no introduction to who they were.
    • Congress is a proper noun
    • What sort of unacceptable offer was made to the Soviets that they had to refuse?
    • Andorra, San Marino, Monaco and Liech'ein; did they benefit?
    • Under ==Expenditures== shouldn't that be West Germany?
    • ...country was enjoying a robust economy. This economy was dependent on trade, however... 1. How did the economy grow so fast (ie. fast enough to sponsor such large amounts of cash in the two years after the War); especially since the economy was dependent on trade between US and Europe? User:Nichalp/sg 09:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Nichalp/sg 09:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

      • I have made some of the changes you suggested. It would be inaccurate to refer to West Germany. That was a term that only became common later, and all the documents from the period simply refer to Germany. I was also curious about Andorra, San Marino, Monaco and Liechtenstein, but in every book I consulted could find no details. Their governments were not invited to the Paris conference, but they most likely received some development aid out of a neighbours budget, as did Luxembourg and Trieste. - SimonP 13:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That bit about Germany, could you add a footnote in the article and mention what you've replied to above? User:Nichalp/sg 14:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Done. - SimonP 20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks. User:Nichalp/sg 05:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Extra special support. This is among the best history articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia (and a good choice for a subject). / Peter Isotalo 11:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now, generally a decent article but not comprehensive. The article mentions criticism from a historical viewpoint, but could it address any contemporary criticism that may have come from US isolationists? From the tactics mentioned surrounding Marshall's speech, it appears this perspective existed, but it is largely missing from the article. --Michael Snow 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There was a bit on this in the Negotiations sections, I have added some more. - SimonP 20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I overlooked that because the Negotiations section began with an international rather than intranational focus. The added material is good as well, but I think the organization could still be reconsidered. Part of the problem is that the section on the speech comes a bit earlier, and thus ends up alluding to an issue that hasn't been explained yet. However, my concern is now more stylistic than substantive, and you can address it as you see fit. Objection withdrawn. --Michael Snow 20:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I prefer to keep the narrative in mainly chronological order, but I have added an opening sentence to the Negotiations section that hopefully makes clear that it covers both the international and American debates. - SimonP 01:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A pretty good article that flows good. Definite support. Falphin 01:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as mentioned in the PR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it possible to modify the colors used on the lead image map, something less bold? The red is rather hard to see (for me, at least). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Some niggles: could it be made clear that the columns in the first image are per capita (I assume that is what "relative amount of total aid per nation" means - relative to population, no?) Also, what is the blue flag with white fleur-de-lys in the image in section 8, Effects? Is there a reason for aggregateing Belguim and Luxembourg in teh table in section 7, Expenditures? -- ALoan (Talk) 07:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Simon, your rejoinder (starting 'The disbursement')—sorry, I should have seen this in the Expenditure section. It does, however, raise the question of why you start that section with 'The Marshall Plan aid was divided among the participant states on a roughly per capita basis', when clearly the allocation per capita was very unequal, as shown in the table and the map at the top. Can you remove that sentence? Is it possible, in a NPOV way, to point out explicitly that the Plan saw through a set of geopolitical agendas? Nowadays, we might look back dispassionately and accept the existence of these agendas. They're an important part of understanding the Plan, aren't they? Tony 08:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well researched. Congrats, It seems set to be the first Economic history related FA.

Pamri • Talk 04:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)