Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Shortcut
  • Propose articles for the WikiProject Economics Featured Article drive below. Your proposal will be automatically considered a Support vote for the article.
  • Members, please Support or Object proposed articles as you desire. No explanation for your vote is needed, but if one is given, it will be taken into consideration.
    Support I think this person or subject has made a huge impact on economics and should be Featured status. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I think that this person or subject does not have a strong relationship with economics. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed articles for Featured Article drive[edit]

Business cycle[edit]

  • (1/4)

One of the most recognized economic patterns. Pdbailey (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support I imagine that Gary is absolutely correct in stating that this would be a more difficult challenge. But I'd still put it on the list, as something of fundamental need for a complete encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talk • contribs)
  1. Oppose Because concepts are harder to bring to FA in my opinion; but I do agree that it is important to economics. I think we should focus on biographical articles more first since they have more of a fixed structure to how they are typically built. Gary King (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed it — for now only, because I don't want it to be the first article we bring to FA. The first article should be something fairly energizing and interesting, like a biography; articles based on concepts are not nearly as fascinating. Gary King (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Unschool (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Without taking a stand on whether we should focus on bios over concepts, I do think that the amount of debate focusing on this article would generate would make bringing it to a stable FA state too time consuming. If the goal is to find something we can get to FA status in a reasonable time period, then this is probably not the article.Wik-e-wik (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Gary's reasoning and because the article has multiple issues. --Explodicle (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose See remarks below regarding the Adam Smith nomination. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Friedman[edit]

  • (6/3)

This was submitted to WP:FAC a few months ago but failed because it was deemed not comprehensive enough. I think it should be improved to Featured Article status because of his contributions to the field of economics. Gary King (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support Few articles could be more important to bring to FAC. Unschool (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support An indubitably important topic, and the recent FAC attempt means this article is closer than almost any other we could work on. That alone might make it worth while as a first WikiProject Economics Featured Article Drive attempt. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that the recent FAC failed miserably — I was the one who nominated it, so I got to experience that firsthand. Gary King (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Article is not in a bad shape to start with and he is one of the most important economists. -- Vision Thing -- 11:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Friedman is IMHO a very important economist. --Explodicle (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I would like to see this article FA. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Keynes and Smith are very important economists but Friedman is the economist most relevant to todays macroeconomic issues and especially regarding monetary theory and inflation. Moreover most people with no or limited knowledge of economics do know who Keynes and Smith are as they part of the well established and unquestionable economists for decades. Of course modern economic history (after 1970)proved that Friedman was correct and viewing the macroeconomy only under the Keynesian light of short-term economic policy was wrong, defected, and ineffective in the problems faced by current economies and governments Periklis Gogas (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Milton Friedman is hugely important to the history of economic thought, but Keynes and Smith are even more important.Wik-e-wik (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Agree with Wik-e-wik, Milton Friedman is far less important that Keynes or Smith, and has a high public profile mainly because of his political sentiments.lk (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose See remarks below regarding the Adam Smith nomination. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)`[reply]

John Maynard Keynes[edit]

  • (5/1)

Everyone is a Keynesian these days, with tax rebate checks flowing into the US to stimulate the economy, it seems he put his finger on some of the most important ideas behind the strong economic growth that characterized the second half of the twentieth century. Pdbailey (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support More important than Friedman, less important than Smith, in my opinion. Gary King (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Less important than both Friedman and Smith, in my opinion, in terms of long-reaching historical import, but influenced 20th century policy in both the US and UK for twice as long as did Friedman. Unschool (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Getting this to FA status seems feasible. Keynes is without peer in terms of his impact on 20th century macroeconomics.Wik-e-wik (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support nominator is correct - Keynesian economics are all the rage right now. --Explodicle (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Keynesian economics has weathered attacks from left and right; the new Keynesian synthesis is generally accepted. Less important than Adam Smith, but more more relevant to today's problems. lk (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose See remarks below regarding the Adam Smith nomination. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macroeconomics[edit]

  • (0/4)

Likewise, this topic is incredibly important to the field of economics. It's in even worse shape than microeconomics, and would need a ton of work. This might be a good enough reason to put off FA work for the time being, but we are going to need to bring it there eventually. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Oppose Again, only for now, because it is a concept and not a biography. This and Micro- will definitely both be THE hardest articles to bring to FA, in my opinion. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not sure I agree that we should work on a biography over a concept first. Are bio articles demonstrably easier to pass an FA? -FrankTobia (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my reasoning: If we work on macro/microeconomics, there will probably be debates on what should and should not be considered part of each branch. The articles are already in very poor shape right now. With biographies, we have a much stronger foundation to build from since we are writing about a single person and their impact on the world. Gary King (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Getting this to FA status doesn't seem feasible in the near term.Wik-e-wik (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Needs a lot of work for now, I concur that FA is not feasible in the near term. --Explodicle (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose See remarks below regarding the Adam Smith nomination. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microeconomics[edit]

  • (1/6)

A large part of what "economics" is, and the foundation for pretty much the entire discipline. It may be difficult bringing it to Featured status, but it would be supremely worthwhile. I would consider it more important than any one economist, especially as an encyclopedia topic. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support. See comment above. I'm supporting since I believe this is one of the most important articles in the economics category. __earth (Talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad micro got at least one support vote that wasn't mine :) -FrankTobia (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It should, otherwise we would have to discard it completely and assume that no one ever wants to touch it! :p Gary King (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose For now; same rationale as the one I gave for Macroeconomics. Gary King (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose FA not feasible in the near term.Wik-e-wik (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Perhaps improvements to a large extent are needed. Ruennsheng (Talk) 12:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I just think that this is too big a project to tackle. I haven't even looked at the article, but wow, the breadth of this is intimidating. Important? Unquestionably. But I just think this is beyond the small cadre that we've established thus far. My 2¢.Unschool (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Not going to be a FA any time too soon due to reasons outlined above. --Explodicle (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose See remarks below regarding the Adam Smith nomination. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Comment: We definitely need to get some experts help on this. While I'm not an expert, I do have some knowledge on the matter since I did economics when I was at Michigan. I still have all those textbooks and notes that I could refer to. __earth (Talk) 02:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have some economics PhDs participating here, so we aren't really lacking in that department. Gary King (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, it shouldn't be a problem!__earth (Talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith[edit]

  • (13/0)

The founder of economic thought, as it is defined today. Should be an FA. Unschool (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support Arguably more important than Milton Friedman; in my opinion, this should be FA before Friedman. He is also considered one of the 200 most influential people ever, as chosen by WP:COREBIO, so it would be a great achievement for Wikipedia as a whole. Gary King (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Undoubtedly unparalleled in his ability to see economic situations clearly and explain them to others. No question this should be a featured article. Pdbailey (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support As a libertarian, I am highly biased in favor of Adam Smith's ideas, however, even disregarding this bias, Adam Smith has had a near-indisputable influence on free-market capitalism and modern economic thought. Paradoxsociety (review) 04:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support The only issue here is that Smith in many ways predates the study of economics and as such, fields like philosophy and political theory also lay claim to him. There is no reason why our project can't take the lead as long as we present a balanced bio.Wik-e-wik (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support One of the 200 most influential people ever is a strong case. Article looks a bit more comprehensive than Keynes's, and should be less contentious than Friedman's. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - No question, this guy is critical. --Explodicle (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Adam Smith doesn't "pre-date" economics. The School of Salamanca is a notable example of work in economics before Adam Smith. According to our own article on Economics, Joseph Schumpeter initially considered the late scholastics of the 14th to 17th centuries as "coming nearer than any other group to being the 'founders' of scientific economics." My point, of course, is that Adam Smith's work is squarely within the realm of economics, and is an important article for the economics project to improve since many people making their first search about economics may end up at the Adam Smith article. DickClarkMises (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Doesn't look like it would take much to get this article to FA quality. We could also enlist the assistance of the much larger biography wikiproject if needed in areas of peer-review and such. Morphh (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - If we are going to start this, this seems like the place to start. Remember (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - He is considered the father of economics, the Wealth of Nations is available for free at Gutenberg, and his work is relatively politically-neutral. Featuring Keynes would tend to favor the political left, while featuring Friedman would tend to favor the political right. As for Business cycle, Macroeconomics, and Microeconomics, that would take a considerable amount of work and I'm not sure how interesting it would be to most readers. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support — no contest here. --Haemo (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Smithiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssss!!!!111one __earth (Talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Probably the easiest article to make FA. I really want to make microeconomic or macroeconomic the first FA but then again, it would take some time to make them FA worthy. Singhapan (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Economics/Featured_Article_drive&oldid=1141874072"