Talk:Jevons paradox/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I'll add my thoughts section by section below.
- Lead
- "Environmental economists have also pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decline if increased efficiency is coupled with a green tax ...". Is "unambiguously" the right word here? What's the ambiguity?
- Energy conservation policy
- "Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease ...". Same point as above.
- "... interventions that impose conservation standards that simultaneously increase costs do not display the Jevons paradox." It's not the interventions that display the paradox, they cause it to occur.
- Notes
- All author names should be consistently given in last name, first name order.
- Images
Jevons.jpeg As the author is unknown, then the PD licence claim that (s)he died more than 70 years ago doesn't apply. Is there any evidence of a publication date?
It's disappointing to see that these suggestions for improvement have been ignored by the nominator, but I've fixed those that I think made this article fall slightly short of the GA criteria, and I'm now listing it as a GA.
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.