Talk:Economic ethics

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pope Francis on Economic theory.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Game Theory (19533668998).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Rationality

The lede says rationality is a fundamental assumption in economics, but that's not quite true. It features heavily in mainstream economics, but many of the economical frameworks in the current article (f.i. environmental economics) often don't assume it as far as I'm aware. Furthermore, the source cited says it's a common assumption, not a fundamental one. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Economic ethics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 11:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this article. Writing a new article is difficult, and I think you've done a reasonable job. I hope this feedback will help you further improve the article.

• I think the biggest issue with the article is that it is not accessible to a sufficiently broad audience. I can imagine that secondary school students that have economics has part of their final exams will be interested in this article. I'm pretty sure that they have never heard of concepts such as the veil of ignorance or currency debasement. Include a very short explanation for terms like this if they are essential to understand the sentence/paragraph.
• many of the sentences are grammatically very complicated, making their interpretation very difficult. I have put some clarify tags in the article, which should serve as an example. Please, go over the entire article and simplify sentence structure. The WP:guild of copy editors may be able to help. Also, try to use easier words is available: use instead of utilize. Use the modern easier spelling economicus instead of the oeconomicus.
• the lead indicates that economic thought started with the Greeks, whereas the history section puts the Indian school of thought first. What is correct?
• the article contains many external links within the body. External links should only feature in the references, further reading and external links sections.
• I have checked about eight sources. Twice, they did not support this sentence, as indicated in the article. Could you make sure these and other sources check out.
• in the section experimental economics one sentence states that altruism is rational, with the next sentence stating there is no explanation. Don't these two sentences contradict each other?
• Per WP:NOTE, we should not put norms on our audience, so avoid using phases like "is needed".
• Political economy is a subject fundamentally based on normative protocol -> Political economy is fundamentally normative (avoid vague/difficult word protocol). Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• The section Middle ages is 50% outside of Europe, but middle ages is term referring to European history. 13:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

In conclusion, I'm afraid I'm failing the article. It fails three of the criteria for becoming a GA: prose (often too difficult), understandable for suitably broad audience (use of jargon) and most importantly verifiability, with several claim not having a source of not checking out. You're welcome to fix these issues and resubmit. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)