Talk:Welfare's effect on poverty/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll try and provide the fullest review possible, that may take a few days for such an important, complex and partisan subject. Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues that appear immediately:

1. The article does not provide a global point of view, it's mostly based on the United States. Some of the mentions of political parties etc might not be understood with non-American readers. Programmes differ significantly across the world. The proper scope though is probably the developed world.

2. The lead is to short and neither introduces nor summarises the article properly. See WP:Lead

3. The article does not include a large enough survey of the relevant literature. The sources are mostly blogs and thinktanks. Here there needs to be a heavy weight on the scholarly, economic literature. Political parties' positions shouldn't be based on their manifestos (a primary source) but a secondary, independent evaluation of them. I see only one source published in an academic journal.

4.I do not feel the article is neutral. It seems too pro-welfare overall. It shouldn't necessarily come down to endorsing one side or the other, both have relevant arguments.WP:NPOV

5. There is insufficient detail on the mechanisms of poverty alleviation & economic growth, poverty cycles and the negative feedback loop of benefits (how the policies might reduce or increase poverty)

6. Sources should cite page numbers and be consistently formatted with full bibliographic info. None presently meet this requirement. See WP:CITE

Many of these issues were mentioned in the peer review last year and do not seem to have been treated sufficiently since then.

I'll go through it for more specific comments and try to recommend sources soon (though I do not have access to an academic library at the moment). Thanks for all the hard work on this article, the edit history shows tenacious editing and care, though unfortunately nI feel this is a long way from the GA standard at the moment. Browse some economics GAs and FAs for a better idea of what is needed, for example economics FAs with similar topics FairTax, United Kingdom corporation tax, and Tulip mania. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from creator

The big problem with this subject was that almost all of the studies and debate come from the US. I'll do my best to find others but the subject seems US-centric, perhaps we need to address in the article that this is mostly a US debate? --CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that it is a bigger narrative in the US, but it does exist elsewhere and there are surely studies of other countries. It is also being discussed quite alot in the UK at the moment.--Ktlynch (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am closing the review as a fail. Congratulations on the work done so far, but this is a demanding topic and a far wider survey of the literature is needed. These issues are so great it's not even worthwhile discussing the aesthetic aspects. It's an important topic, and I'd definitely be available to help however I can with a view to future nomination as a GA. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]