History of economic thought/Approval
Roger A. Lohmann
This article looks suitable for approval to me; as with a number of other examples, we might leave the sub pages unapproved at this point, and continue to develop them. Economists are a contentious lot and there will always be points that someone or other will wish to challenge, but from the standpoint of an editor and economic fellow-traveler, I think this article does a nice job of emphasizing what needs to be emphasized. The article is also a good starting point (one of several, I expect) to a broad and growing range of additional topics explored under this heading.
The Related Articles page does not appear at first to be as complete as it might be, but the suite is constructed in such a way that subsidiary pages do the heavy lifting. The top links to Economic Glossary and Economic Topics open to a cornucopia of related pages, but this may not be immediately clear to a new reader. Perhaps a brief note of explanation of those two might make them more accessible?
The bibliography page isn't anywhere near complete, but it does offer an undergraduate (is that still our focus?) a good selection of readings to explore.
The timelines page is a start, but with three entries for the period since Alfred Marshall in 1890, it isn't very complete. It might be interesting to include major economic events such as depressions, recessions, Nobel prizes, the development of new subfields, and other such information as well. And it isn't clear that the numbers in brackets are the best way to convey that these are links to copies/exerpts from the cited works.
There is also a timelines page format somewhere.... I used it on the Civil Society timeline, for example. It would add to the appearance of this timelines page.
That said, I support the main article for immediate approval.
Anthony.Sebastian, Approval Manager
As I see it, Nick Gardner has responded satisfactorily to the review by History Editor, Roger A. Lohmann (see Comments section on the Article's Talk page). Nick committed to editing the subpages in response to Roger's comments/suggestions.
My study of the article's content and organization found it coherent, adequately attributed, and written in a style that invites reading.
Timelines can always accommodate more details artfully displayed, Related Articles should stay open as new articles are added to CZ, and the same for Bibliography, as scholarship brings new published research evidence. Anthony.Sebastian 20:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- After additional review of the comments on the Talk, and rereading the article, I consider the article approvable, and I completed the ToApprove template, specifying revision date-time and version url. I will certify for Approval 18 April 2012 unless any comment warrants extension of that date in my judgment. The green ToApprove banner now appears above the Main Article. Anthony.Sebastian 21:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Additional comments by Peter Schmitt appear adequately responded to by Nick Gardner. I will proceed to certify the article for Approval. Anthony.Sebastian 14:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
|Roger A. Lohmann nominated the version dated 07:34, 15 April 2012 of this article for approval. One other editor supported the approval (Anthony.Sebastian). The Economics Workgroup and History Workgroup oversaw this approval and the article was approved on, or around, 18 April 2012.|