Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Economics

Article is no longer a featured article.

Not a featured article for these reasons:

There are no references or inline cites that I can find. While the "further reading" may have been used as a source, I'm pretty sure that these are not the only sources that can be used for a topic this huge. Besides references, the see also and external links sections are ridiculously long and several italicized see-alsos are interspersed throughout the text. It's a shame because I think that this could be a very good article. Unfortunately, it is not a Featured article. Also, this was designated a featured article of concern in Featured Article Review.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Remove. I've struggled through enough economics textbooks to be able to say this article is not comprehensive. Also, the lack of references and inline citations by itself makes the article a clear removal candidate. Mikker (...) 02:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, what would you say it is missing, with regard to being comprehensive? Christopher Parham (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • To give you a full answer I'd need my ecos textbooks in front of me but these are in a box 1500km away so I'll answer off the top of my head. Firstly, and most obviously: mathematics! With the exceptions of neuroeconomics or behavioral economics, economics is fundamentally a rationalist enterprise that attempts to explain the world through mathematics. I get no sense of this from the article in question. (Compare the article on, say, Game theory). Secondly, the "Development of economic thought" section needs to be expanded (I'm aware there is a sub-article, more still needs to go in the main article). Thirdly, "Schools of economic thought" is extremely sparse and gives no real sense of the debates in the discipline. Fourthly, the actual content of economics is not really covered. Where is the explanation of basic national income accounts? Where is the IS/LM macro model? (it's not even in the macroeconomics sub-article for crying out loud!). Where is the discussion of the RAT assumption? Why are the explanation for the basic microfoundations? Etc. etc. We really need an economist to come re-write the article. (and that's not me, I hated every second of my four years of ecos...) Mikker (...) 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't know that we want the article to go into too much mathematical detail; that is not material that is likely to be helpful for people who are entering the subject at the broadest level. Those readers are, frankly, very unlikely to want to work with national income identities or model a money supply. Your second and third points I'd agree with, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not saying the article should have master's level mathematics, just some basic Eco100 mathematics, a couple of basic micro and macro models etc. (i.e. roughly at the same level as the game theory article). Those who are not interested or not willing can skip the math sections, but those who are willing and interested would benefit from some rigour. If you don't know much about ecos (say, you're in high school deciding whether to study it at university), you'd be positively misled by the article as it stands currently. Most of the discipline is an exercise in mathematics, and this doesn't come through at all in the article! Mikker (...) 17:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I disagree that an intro article should have much if any mathematics. Leave that to the more detailed subarticles. There is no room in this article to discuss detailed models. - Taxman Talk 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Economics is mathematics. So that view confuses me utterly. In any case, why did you find my other comments concerning comprehensiveness unpersuasive? Mikker (...) 09:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Economics is the study of human choice. Mathematics is the heaviest component, sure, but not everything in economics is explained through it, especially not from the onset. You don't need to show an example of vector analysis to say what mathematics is. You don't need thermodynamics to explain what chemistry is. This article is like the first chapter of any intro to microeconomics book you'll find on the market. It might use some graph, but all it's meant to do is explain what economics is and give a basic history and introduction to it's school of thought. They don't show an IS/LM macro model or discuss the RAT assumption. Most of the time, they don't even explain the theory behind opportunity cost. Any person first entering school who thinks he or she wants to study it will have to start with the basic classes like everyone else, and they will get a feel for what the study entails. That's not the purpose of an introduction article like this is. It's a 6th grade science report, not a master's thesis. You make some good points that parts of this article could be expanded, but you seem to want far too much explained in the introduction. 139.78.96.218 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Now, all that said, I still don't think it's good enough for a feature artical. There's a lot that should be addressed and expanded on before considering making it one of the prime examples on wikipedia, I just don't think explaining the math of it is what needs to be addressed. Most of the article is links to other links and there are many parts that should be expanded, such as the development and schools of thought sections. Hawk405359 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - it is quite hard to write a good and comprehensive article on such a broad topic, and I think this article makes a good attempt. However, it has no references. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It does have references, they are just weaved into the prose. - Taxman Talk 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It did not have a "References" section: I have added one, using the few "weaved" references; I still think the referencing is inadequate, though, and have also added a forest of {{fact}}s. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. While this has no references, there's not really much of anything incorrect in it either. Nearly all of it could be cited to any comprehensive econ textbook. I've got a few sources I could use and I'll see if I can't get to it on Sunday. - Taxman Talk 21:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm having trouble allocating the time to this one, but could the people that would like to remove it create a summary of problems on the talk page? Then we can decide on which ones everyone agrees to and fix them up. - Taxman Talk 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove lack of references. Not really a reason I'd give to remove but the see also section could use some pruning as it looks like a link farm Just another star in the night T | @ | C 06:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. As comprehensive as it needs to be in a general encyclopedia. It may not have a section actually titled references but is is obviously well referenced. To cal the external links and further reading section "references" at the time this was FACd was not essential criteria, as Miss Madeline well knows. Secondly, Miss Madeline will you please not keep citing "no inline cites" as a reason to FARC. If their absence bothers you so much why not go through the external links, further reading and add a few, that would do the encyclopedia more good then these FARCs you keep nominating. No inline cites, as has also been explained, is not a reason to FARC. Giano | talk 16:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Giano, presumably you read my extensive comments above concerning the lack of comprehensiveness in this article. Could you please explain why you think I'm wrong? Mikker (...) 19:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As the one seeking to alter the status quo you have two choices, either to argue your case, or not to argue your case. I can understand the article perfectly and am happy with it. - You seem to have chosen an opposing view. So you can either stand by your view, or you can edit the article to become even more comprehensive that it is at the moment. I look forward to your future editing and improvement of this already featured article. Giano | talk 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes but no references is. Based on your reasoning, obvious references for a broad topic would be a brief introduction to part of it, an abridged version of a book written hundreds of years ago, and an essay which isn't mentioned anywhere in the text. Do you really think that that is adequate? Furthermore, "further reading" does not mean that it was used as a reference. It could just be a document that someone knew about and put it in, without actually having read it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ummm... I have argued my case in detail. (again, see above). Now, the article in question either does or does not satisfy WP:WIAFA. If it does satisfy WIAFA it should be kept featured, if it doesn't it shouldn't be kept featured. WIAFA 2(b) says "'comprehensive' means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details". The article does not come near to covering the topic of economics in its entirety, as I've shown above. If you disagree with this view you could (a) (unreasonably, in my opinion) stick to your vote without engaging in discussion, (b) demonstrate why I'm wrong or (c) be convinced by my argument and change your vote. I hope you do either (b) or (c). Mikker (...) 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As you both have so succinctly highlighted where you feel the perceived shortcomings are, I look forward to seeing your combined efforts on the improved article. Which as it of of FA standard now can only be improved by you interests and contributions. Congratulations to you both for picking up the challenge. Giano | talk 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ....of those it humours to believe etc. Giano | talk 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I guess. Quite ok without maths, which belongs in daughter articles. I wonder why there's no mention of Daniel Kahneman, a key pioneer of the integration of economics and cognitive science, in particular with respect to risk management and happiness. He won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2003. Tony 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, since it lacks inline citations. Having inline citations might not have been part of the criteria back when this was featured, but that does not say why it should not have to meet that requirement; articles are not grandfathered in, and they shouldn't, since they represent the best of Wikipedia's content. For example, every single quote in the article should have a citation adjacent to it; otherwise, there's no way for other contributors to check the accuracy of the citation. Furthermore, it also lacks images on the top, and it doesn't follow a clear organization (e.g. why is supply and demand defined before scarcity?) Also, something as fundamental as monetary policy is not mentioned anywhere on the article, except on the See also section, which needs a good trimming. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It has inline citations folks. Did everyone actually read it? I must admit that on my quick check this time I did not, even though I had seen the references before. - Taxman Talk 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, though this may return to FAC soon. References are actually the easy part; right now it is simply not very well written. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Good, lord yes. Economics professor here. Frankly, it's just not good, citations or no. Derex 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Not written well. 20:06, 15 April 2006
  • Remove - Doesn't cover enough. Not enough references.--Urthogie 19:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Request—Can we have more details from Derex as to how it might be improved? Tony 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)