Talk:Richard Cantillon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing this review. Looks very well researched.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent read. Since I expect you'll be pushing this one on towards FAC, I'm giving you a tougher review than normal for a GAN. I really only have comments for the initial sections since after that I dug in and did it myself.

Lede

"little available information on Cantillon the man" Perhaps, "little available information on Cantillon's life"

"Cantillon speculated in and helped organize" Logically, wouldn't he do that in the opposite order? You also might want to do a quick mention of the fate of the Mississippi Company here, which would let you do just a passing reference in the third paragraph.

" great wealth. Unfortunately, his great wealth" Perhaps change one of the "great wealths" to something else? "Unfortunately" is probably a POV term that should be avoided.

" by Jevons" link? And I'm unclear on why "rediscovery" is in quotes.

I find phrases such as "as aforementioned" and "among others" totally unnecessary. A shorter number of words is generally preferable.

Biography

"shrouded in mystery" A little too dramatic for an encyclopedia, I think. Perhaps "Although there are many uncertainties ..." Also, a lot of people really don't like the word "while" when used as a synonym for "Although".

" Born in County Kerry, Ireland," This declarative phrase, part of an ablative, I believe, reads oddly in combination with the previous sentence. Perhaps reverse the order of the first two sentences. "the son of" is probably more common than "son to".

" found himself" was. You might also want to mention what war was going on.

"organized" As Cantillon was British, you must use British forms, so "organised".

"Cantillon became involved in the banking industry" What did he do?

General comments:

Look for the shortest way of saying something.

See if you can get someone better versed in economics than me to give it a copyedit.

You may be a bit too technical in the economics sections, but I'm not certain.

Anyway, it passes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, and especially for the copyedit (a lot of spelling mistakes on my part)! The specific suggestions you've made have been followed. I will see if someone is willing to copyedit the article, and I will take another look at the language used in the technical part of the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]