Talk:Permanent income hypothesis

Permanent income hypothesis has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 21, 2021. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Permanent income hypothesis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Card Carrying Parrot (talk · contribs) 00:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin reviewing the article. Give me a good 3-7 days. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

Prose:

The prose is clear and concise
Summarizes the article quite well

WP:MOS:

~~Needs better Accessibility (eg. add !scope to table)~~Y Done
~~Needs alt captions~~Y Done
~~Although this is not necessarily a shortcoming, I would recommend merging 'simple model' and 'extensions'~~Y Done

Reference Layout:

Everything is provided for easy access to look at (ISBN, JSTOR, DOI, ISSN, CiteSeerX)
No issues here

WP:RS:

Excellent sourcing (all sources are WP:RS; all are from academic sources)
Every paragraph is backed up by a source (except for the section with math in it)
Needs one minor improvement: after deleting some source, it was still left in (Was Milton Friedman a Socialist?, Block)

WP:NOR:

No original research is present

Broadness:

Covers the topic well
No major aspects omitted
No complex jargon, if present, it is defined

Focus:

No issues here; is quite focused on the article itself, not other things
Includes all major aspects

Neutral:

~~Includes a criticism section, and presents a wide variety of viewpoints~~
Is neutral, includes varying viewpoints, has a reception section which touches on both praise and criticism

Definitely represents viewpoints from a mainstream perspective

Stable:

This is usually an automatic pass, but on this one it looks like there are only a few editors who actively have done anything on the page, outside of the nominator, so it is especially true that it holds no issues here

Images:

Text is supported by images
No copyright violations

After painstakingly looking through every source (except for Worek 2010; the rest I was able to find somewhere), I have been able to verify all claims. Please remove Block 2010, because it is not cited anywhere (as in it is in the reflist, but not in any of the actual sfn templates).

Closing Remarks

This article fits the WP:GA criteria. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@buidhe sorry to ping you, but does this review look okay? Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Card Carrying Parrot I think this is a good start, but I also think that some additional scrutiny is merited for topics that are controversial. For example, for evaluating the neutrality you note that the article "Includes a criticism section, and presents a wide variety of viewpoints". First of all, it's good practice to combine praise and criticism into a reception section for NPOV. Second of all, I would try to make sure the article creator is representing the sources correctly, instead of imposing his own viewpoint. For example, I checked the last source cited in the article and was unable to WP:VERIFY that it supported the content. You also want to check: does the article represent fairly mainstream views in economics, or is it slanted towards particular views? Here, a Google Scholar search can be helpful. Likewise, original research can be hard to spot without double checking at least some of the references. (This article claims "In an earlier study, Friedman, Kuznets (1945), he makes the case for a similar conception of income"—citing Friedman Kuznets 1945. But who says it's similar? No source is cited so it must be WP:OR).
That's why WP:Reviewing good articles says to double-check the sources: "At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means."
Sourcing: Academic sources are often reliable, but be on the lookout for predatory journals or others that don't publish mainstream views for their field. For example, Mises Institute is considered generally unreliable at WP:RSN, although it may be acceptable to cite for the views of the Mises Institute or its writers.

I cited an academic journal from the Mises Institute, which is peer reviewed, and only used it to cite the views of Austrians BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that it doesn't (or at least didn't) back up what it claims to support. Also, WP:SCHOLARSHIP cautions against journals that are dedicated to a particular point of view such as Austrian economics as they tend to be less rigorous. (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would apply a lot of scrutiny to statements like, "Unresolved inconsistencies explain the failure of transitory Keynesian demand management techniques to achieve its policy targets". Is it a total failure or simply not completely successful? When in doubt, attribute to the person who said it: "Meghir states that unresolved inconsistencies..." Likewise, "The permanent income hypothesis has evidence supporting such a view..." what evidence? Who thinks it supports the hypothesis?

I cite a study (Shapiro et al), and say so in the text (also added "According to Costas Meghir") BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the authors of the study is a first step, but if you're going to mention it here you have to explain what evidence? What did they measure? Who think it supports the PIH? (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes present information without giving a reliable source. Therefore, I added citation needed tags.

Done BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check that you fully understand the article and it doesn't contain unnecessary jargon; the GA criteria requires "understandable to an appropriately broad audience". The article does use acronyms without ever explaining what they are, such as "APC" and "MPC" in the table, or "MPS". It also uses difficult to understand language, such as "Nonrelief nonfarm families".

The "Nonrelief farm families" as an example (read: entire table) was copied from (Friedman 1957); MPC, APC, and MPS are linked (and I will add an explanatory footnote to every instance of usage) BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be copying and pasting from sources, that's often considered copyvio. Rewrite in your own words. (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive quotations are used, which can harm neutrality and length and lead to copyright issues. Especially since there's no source cited to connect the second block quote with the subject of this article. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BasedMises If you're going to intersperse your replies with my comments, please indent and add a signature to make them clearly distinguishable. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize for numerous contributions to economics, such as his permanent income hypothesis? Source: Forder, James; Monnery, Hugo (2019). "Why Did Milton Friedman Win the Nobel Prize? A Consideration of His Early Work on Stabilization Policy". Economic Journal Watch. Fraser Institute. 16 (1): 130–145.
ALT1... that Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis helped to earn him a Nobel Prize? Source: see above

Improved to Good Article status by BasedMises (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - No
Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough and well sourced. No issues with neutrality or copyvio. The hook's interest seems fine to me but I rephrased it as ALT1 to address Daniel Case's concerns. One problem: the source cited in the hook does not seem to mention the "permanent income hypothesis" specifically. It definitely alludes to it, but I'd think a more precise source would be better. If that got added I would be ready to approve. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work? BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 01:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. It's a primary source but the Nobel Foundation is reliable for information about the Nobel Prize. It could be used in combination with the original source you provided. There is one issue @BasedMises: the fact in the article it also has to be cited. The article cites Worek's offline book, so I'm assuming the book says that. If it doesn't we have to fix that. Otherwise we can (and probably should) use the citation from the article in the hook to keep it consistent. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BasedMises: it's been over a week and I wasn't sure if you saw the last comment. This nom needs just a little more work on the sources to get it up to spec. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I kind of forgot about this. I think I'll add the Nobel source to the article.BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 05:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it! I figured you probably just forgot or were busy. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dull hook. Does anyone who wins the economics Nobel win for just one thing they did? No. And really, the hook should be something about the subject of the article, not the person who created that subject. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case, BasedMises, and BuySomeApples: This hook should be rejected if there's no movement within a few days. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Yeah. It's been 2 weeks and the sourcing on the article/hook hasn't been fixed. I think BasedMises was busy but it's not ready for approval unless that gets fixed. I'll reject this one unless that gets sorted out in the next few days. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's been 10 days since the nominator's last edit, and how the article hasn't even been edited in over a month, unless another editor decides to adopt this or the nom returns, it appears that there is no path forward to the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Greek explanatory footnotes?

I can't see a single advantage of these over ordinary Latin alphabet footnotes. I would "be bold" & change them, but it would take some time. For future reference, the template used is Template:Efn-lg.

Other articles, even rather technical ones in the scope of wikiproject economics, do not use these type of notes:

Shapley–Folkman lemma uses lowercase Latin letters

Brander–Spencer model uses Arabic numerals

I will probably change this when I get a moment, if nobody else gets there first or objects.

Separate issues

(not sure what I'll do with these even if I had time):

1. Footnotes beta, gamma, delta, and eta all repeat the same stuff (distinction between MPC and MPS). Can those be consolidated to one footnote? Better yet, can we simply delete the later scattershot footnotes? (Why footnote MPC under Policy implications but not Empirical evidence, for example?)

2. Footnote gamma doesn't even lead to the "right thing." It's attached to APC (which is not defined anywhere, and only mentioned once, much farther down the page).

3. The table is labeled "Fig. 1". That's not ordinary style for Wikipedia. Why not just "as shown in the table below"? Is there a figure 2? What if a different figure 1 gets inserted above? The caption "Fig. 1: Analysis of consumption...." isn't typical either. Lastly, even in an academic paper (at least those publishers I know), this would be a table, not a figure. Is this perhaps a remnant of the formatting of the original source of this table?

--Officiallyover (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]