Talk:Ragnar Nurkse's balanced growth theory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 05:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Excellent article - reading it was a pleasure! I would argue that this theory is valid in developed countries too, and Keynesian theory should not be applied anywhere, but that's neither here nor there. ;) This article is very close to being a GA; all it needs is a little bit more work.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Almost - just address the issues cited in the comments below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Pretty good, just a few issues here. Please the comments for more details.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Very good job here! You gave enough background information to help readers who may be unfamiliar with the subject, but not too much so as to stray off topic. If you could include some information on what impact the theory has made, it would be even better.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I think so - the criticism section concerns me a little, though, see the comments below.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I can tell you have put in a ton of work on this article! I have noted a few minor issues, though, so I am placing this article on hold for seven days. The comments below contain some suggestions for improvements you can make, but please realize that they are indeed suggestions, not demands. If you disagree with any of them, please let me know. Also, please don't feel like you have to deal with all of them in order for me to pass this as a GA - just do what you can and I will reassess after a week. Thank you very much for all contributions to this article and to the encyclopedia. Happy editing! :) --Cerebellum (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Referencing: Ragnar Nurkse referenced the work of Allyn A. Young to assert that inducement to invest is limited by the size of the market. This should be referenced.
Inducement to invest: I don't understand the connection between inducement to invest and Adam Smith, from the second sentence of the first paragraph. I get that a small market means limited incentive for investing, and also that according Smith small markets impair the division of labor, but I don't see the connection between these two ideas. Could you please elaborate?
Transport cost and trade barriers: Having introduced the term "export pessimism", you need to explain what it means, or at least say that it will be defined later in the article.
Prose: He stated that financing through increased trade or foreign investments was a strategy used in the past - the 19th century - and was limited to the case of the United States of America. Do you mean that the strategy was only successful for America, or that it was only used for America?
Neutrality: You have to watch out for saying controversial things in Wikipedia's voice, instead of attributing them to the people that said them. For example, in the criticism section you say, Thus, Nurkse's assumption of Say's Law being operational in underdeveloped countries too is false. It would be more neutral if you said something like, Thus, according to these critics Nurkse's assumption of Say's Law being operational in underdeveloped countries too is false. Other similar statements are However, he has failed to take into consideration the fact that not all industries produce complementary goods and However, this is not true. Try to rewrite these statements in an impartial tone per WP:NPOV.
Neutrality: Similarly, you say that the tenet of putting emphasis on supply rather than demand has been widely discredited. This is a pretty bold statement, and it would be good if it could be cited to two or more sources, since it is likely to be challenged.
Neutrality: For the Reactions section, are there any supporters of Nurkse's theory who disagree with these critics? If so, you could add statements like "So-and-so has disputed Hirschman's claims, saying such-and-such." This would help make the article more balanced.
Lead: Paul Rosenstein-Rodan is mentioned in the article's lead but nowhere else. In general, things in the lead should also appear in the article body.
Lead: Similarly, the lead should ideally be a compact summary of the everything in the article body, so if you could include some information from the "size of market", "export pessimism", and possibly "reactions" sections in the lead, it would be very helpful.
References: I notice that you cite Economics Of Development And Planning—Theory And Practice several times, but there are not page numbers listed. This may may it difficult for readers to find where exactly the information in the article comes from.
References: The link to Ragnar Nurkse's biography on jrank.org doesn't work! Is there any way to replace it? You can also try looking on archive.org for an archived version of it.
Broadness of coverage: The only question I had after reading this article was about the current status of the theory. You say that it has been criticized on a number of grounds - does anyone still believe it? If so, is it being applied in the real world? If not, what other theories have taken its place? Have any governments tried using the theory? More of this type of background information would help me to better understand the significance of this theory.
Prose: This isn't a big deal, but I am concerned about the widespread use of italics in the article. It is somewhat distracting. Please see MOS:ITALIC for more information. I hope you don't mind that I've already un-italicized some things.

Follow up

Hello! Thank you for reviewing the article! So nice of you.

I have taken care of the following so far:

Referencing
Inducement to invest
Transport cost and trade barriers
Prose
Neutrality - not completely

I will work on the rest of the points within the 7 day deadline. Thanks for covering the article so well! Your feedback is really helpful and easy to implement. :)

Thanks and regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a small doubt. When I search for Ragnar Nurkse's page on social.jrank.org, the link appears but when I click it, it redirects me to the home page. I don't know why this is happening. How should I fix this? Also, I have improved the lead section, the problems about Rosenstein-Rodan and the lack of citations as well. Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, good work! I am happy to pass this article as a GA now. As for the link, that website seems to have deleted the page. This is unfortunate but not uncommon; usually I would recommend trying to find an archived version of the page using the Internet Archive, but it doesn't seem to be working right now. I suggest that you wait a few days to see if the Internet Archive starts working again, and if not then take a look at WP:DEADLINK for more options. Anyways, thanks for your hard work on this article! --Cerebellum (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]