Oriana Bandiera is currently an Economics and business good article nominee. Nominated by RegMonkey (talk) at 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.
Short description: Italian economist
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Hello there. I am happy to take this article on for review, as part of the GAN backlog drive and after seeing this article on the Women in Green autumn backlog. I will provide section-by-section comments, followed by a broad check against the GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, I'll note that this article has been tagged as citing several primary sources since December 2023. These should be addressed. You should over the policy on primary sources to make sure you're using them properly, and cut any usage that goes against policy.
I'm concerned about the use of Bandiera's CV throughout the article. You should find alternative sources to this one, as citing her CV so much could be considered promotional.
Spotcheck: [1][2] Università Ca' Foscari verifies the date of birth and Barcelona School of Economics verifies the place of birth. Consider moving this citations inline with the specific information they verify, rather than bundling them together at the end of the sentence.
Spotcheck: [2] Verified, but this sentence is copy-pasted from the source. I understand a sentence like this is difficult to rewrite in your own words, but give it a try if you see another way to word it.
Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
"Palanpur was in many ways more similar to her native Sicily than it was to Milan," This doesn't clarify well enough what Bandiera said. The way it's written here, it seems like she's saying that Palanpur was more similar to Sicily than Palanpur was to Milan, but she actually said that her Sicilian village was more similar to Palanpur than the Sicilian village was to Milan. Consider rewording to make this clearer.
Spotcheck: [4] The cited source here is a primary source, that being Bandiera's own PhD thesis. This verifies that she studied under "James E. Anderson, Fabio Schianterelli, and Richard Arnott", although this appears to be trivia, as none of them seem to be independently notable enough for even redlinks. But it doesn't verify that she actually received her PhD, as it only says the thesis was a "partial fulfilment" of the PhD criteria. It does verify the subject of the thesis through the abstract. Are there any reliablesecondary sources, which verify that she received her PhD, that you can cite instead of citing her thesis?
This first paragraph is cited almost entirely to Bandiera's CV, which makes it read like a CV itself. This does not make for a good article. If there are reliable secondary sources on this, then you should cite those instead. If there isn't reliable secondary sourcing for this information, consider whether it needs to be in the article at all.
Spotcheck: [5][1] I wasn't able to access the Who's Who article, although you should really put this into proper citation formatting, also you link to the disambiguation page for Who's Who, rather than the article about the specific reference work being cited (Who's Who (UK)). Verified information from CV, but if this is in Who's Who, then why are we citing her CV?
Spotcheck: [6][7] Verified.
"She currently holds the Sir Anthony Atkinson Chair in Economics at LSE" The use of "currently" is ambiguous time that is liable to change. When did she first take this position? It would be more helpful to say "Since [X year], she has held the Sir Anthony Atkinson Chair [...]".
Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
Spotcheck: [5][9] Unable to verify Who's Who, verified through the Econometric Society.
Why is the paper itself being cited alongside the New York Times article covering it? Considering the paper is already listed in the selected publications section, I don't think you need to cite it here.
Spotcheck: [18][19] Failed verification. None of this information appears to be in the Devex citation, so I'm not sure where it's coming from other than the cited primary source.
Spotcheck: [20][21] Verified. Again, if you have a secondary source verifying this information, and the primary source is already listed in the selected publications section, I don't think you need to cite it here.
No need to cite the Zambia study when it's in the selected publications, and the Financial Times already covers this as a secondary source.
"Finally," Finally? Is this her last work? Why is it final?
Spotcheck: [23][24] Verified. Although again, you have a secondary source in The Economist verifying this information, so the primary source doesn't need to be cited as well if it's in the selected publications section.
Spotcheck: [27][28] Verified. Although the primary source published by the Hub for Equal Representation in the economy should really be in the selected publications section, it would be better listed there than in a citation here.
Why is the EEA logo included here? It's only one of several organisations mentioned in this section.
I'm usually wary about including Google Scholar results, but it's attributed here, so I think it's inclusion is fine.
Spotcheck: [29] Verified.
Spotcheck: [30] Verified.
Spotcheck: [31] Verified.
Spotcheck: [32] Verified.
You shouldn't be citing a tweet, especially when this information is already covered by a better source.
Spotcheck: [34] Not seeing anything here about them being "frequent" co-authors, only that they received the prize together.
Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
"In 2016, she was elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society" This is duplicate information, also included in the "Academic career" section. One of these instances should be cut.
Spotcheck: [35] Verified.
Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
Can't verify Who's Who, although I will note this is a duplicate citation and should be merged with the other citation to Who's Who.
I notice that none of her work on the gender pay gap appears to be listed in this section, is there a reason for this? These papers are ones your readers may like to know about.
You should sort the entries by chronological order, so the December 2014 article should go before the ones from 2020.
This lead is very short and not particularly informative. It currently reads like little more than a list of positions she holds, but talks very little about her actual research, which is the main thing I'd want to know from a lead section about an academic. Consider giving it a rewrite and a slight expansion, this would go a long way for introducing us to Bandiera.
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Found one citation that isn't properly formatted, this should be fixed.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
This is one of the main issues. There are a lot of primary sources peppered throughout the article. In some cases they're used properly, in others they aren't, and in a few they're redundant with reliablesecondary sources. In particular, the use of Bandiera's CV is very problematic.
No examples of original research found, almost all information is verified in the cited sources, although I think there's one case where the wrong source was cited.
Earwig doesn't flag anything major.[1] I noticed a couple cases of copy-pasting or close paraphrasing, but they're minor cases where I'm not sure how they could feasibly be rewritten without losing relevant information.
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I don't think the academic career section, in its current state, can be considered neutral. It reads a lot like a CV, because it's largely citing a CV, and as such brings with it an almost promotional tone.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No reversions in its history, no major changes from day-to-day.
Photographs are freely licensed by the authors, but I am highly suspicious of the author license for the EEA logo. I'm not sure the uploader is actually the copyright holder of that logo.
Photographs are relevant and suitably captioned, although could do with alt text. I don't think the EEA logo is relevant, it just gives undue weight to the EEA in a section where they're only one in several organisations mentioned.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
While I think this article is all good on prose and broadness, it has big problems with reliability and neutrality, largely due to its "Academic career" section. Major work needs to be done to overhaul that section, in order to have it read less like a CV. The lead also needs work, as I don't think the various positions Bandiera holds are nearly as important to the reader as the subjects and details of her research work. I don't think this article meets the GA criteria right now, but I think it could get there with some work, so I am putting this review on hold for now. Feel free to ping me when you think you've addressed my comments, or if you have any questions. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]