Talk:Dot-com bubble/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 10:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotographyEdits: Hey there, I notice that you have not edited this article in the past. Nothing wrong with that, what I'd like to do though is propose a few preliminary changes, if you can make those for me within the next week it will demonstrate that this is not just a drive-by nomination and I'll happily conduct a full review :) --Cerebellum (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "which" tag in the second paragraph of "the bubble", also a "page needed" tag in the third paragraph.
Two paragraphs in "bursting of the bubble" do not have citations, for a GA I think every paragraph should have at least one. Same with second paragraph of "Aftermath" and first of "Legacy".
Notable companies: What are your thoughts on this section? I'm thinking it should be moved to Dot-com company, it seems more relevant to that article than this one. It will hurt this article's chances at GA because many of the bullet points don't have refs, and the MOS prefers prose over lists in articles (MOS:USEPROSE). I'm open to a discussion if you disagree. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cerebellum: I will try to find those sources for the text that needs a citation. About the notable companies, to me it seems fine to move them to the Dot-com company. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotographyEdits: Thank you for moving the companies and adding those references! Will you be able to knock out the two maintenance tags and the last couple of references? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am going to go ahead and fail this article. It has been a week. Aside from the three issues noted above I think this article fails criterion #3, broadness. It does not have enough detail, particularly on the macroeconomic reasons for the bubble. If you look at Japanese asset price bubble there are 5400 words of prose, and Black Monday (1987) has 3700 words. This article only has 2100 words, it's not enough to really explain what happened. It mentions that interest rates were low but not why they were low. There is more detail at Greenspan put that might be relevant: However, the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1998, which coincided with the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, led to such a dramatic expansion of the Greenspan Put that it created the Dot-com bubble. According to that article, the Fed was also buying treasuries and lending money to banks (repurchase agreements). That article is pretty biased idk if that truly caused the bubble, I just think this article needs to be fleshed out a bit more. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more suggestions for improvement:

"Bursting of the bubble" has many short paragraphs of one sentence, I would combine into full paragraphs.
Article mentions Super Bowl ads by dotcom companies several times. Is that really an important metric? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I was too busy with other things last week. Thanks for the comments anyway @Cerebellum:, I'll add these things before doing a future nomination. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good :) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]