Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tulip mania/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [1].

Tulip mania

Notified: Smallbones, Ceoil, ~~JayHenry~~ (last edit was 2011), WikiProject Economics, WikiProject Finance & Investment, WikiProject Netherlands, WikiProject Plants, 2020-07-03 2022-11-06

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are multiple instances of statements without citations, short paragraphs that can be merged or reformatted, and references listed that are not used as inline citations. A secondary matter might be searching for academic literature that has been published since the article's original FAC and using them as sources. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a background section to replace the one that was denied. It doesn't seem like any significant sources were published in the last few years. As far as De Rosa (2021) is concerned Garber (2000) and Goldgar (2007) are still the most comprehensive and important treatises on the subject. He also mentions Thompson (2007) while he conveniently ignores French. I think the article needs to include French (which it does) as a dissenting voice to achieve balance. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt that significant academic literature has been published since the article's original FAC, unless the nominator is holding back for some reason. I'm not seening "multiple instances of statements without citations", and " short paragraphs that can be merged or reformatted, and references listed that are not used as inline citations" as very light-weight SOFIX stuff. Geez, an editor that supported an article back in the day could almost feel as being guilt tripped via frivolous clock them up noms. Ceoil (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some cn tags to places where I think citations are needed. Some of the short paragraphs I think need to be reformatted are the paragraphs that begin with "In the Northern Hemisphere, tulips bloom in April and May for about one week." "Tulip mania reached its peak during the winter of 1636–37," and "The popularity of Mackay's tale has continued to this day..." While I do not know if significant literature has been published, I haven't done a search for it because I am not an expert in this field and so some of the sources I find might not be useful for the article. I am happy to do a search of various databases I have access to (WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, NYT, and others through my local library system) if someone is willing to evaluate and add information if applicable. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to state for the record that I see nothing dubious about this FAR-nomination. The article has issues, even in the lede. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the paragraph with the cn-tag under "legal changes", beginning with: "Before this parliamentary decree, the purchaser of a tulip contract—known in modern finance as a forward contract—was legally obliged to buy the bulbs." this does not seem to be true. As stated in Dash (1999) and Garber (2000, p. 34) several laws limiting and banning futures trading had been passed in the preceding decades. The legal status of these contracts should have been at best unsettled. Can we strike this section? Draken Bowser (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: Considering the lack of edits by others, I think its ok for you to WP:BEBOLD and make edits yourself. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it, need to spend some time cross-checking page numbers. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been on a short wiki-break, but I intend to. One or two footnotes in my draft failed verification, so I'm re-reading the other sources to discover the basis for these statements. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draken Bowser, noting you haven't been active lately, are you still working here or should we proceed to FARC? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, progress stalled for over a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC citations are inconsistent in formatting; book citations don't use {{cite book}} even when {{sfn}} is otherwise used, and even the latter is inconsistently used in the lead alone. There are also some content issues; all of the modern interpretations of the mania depicted in the article appear to suggest that it was in fact rational, either due to market forces or the legal changes per Thompson. However, the lead says that "It is generally considered to have been the first recorded speculative bubble or asset bubble in history", saying that "Some modern economists have proposed rational explanations" (emphasis added) and only at the end conceding that "Although Mackay's book is a classic, his account is contested. Many modern scholars believe that the mania was not as destructive as he described." From the article alone (I have not looked deeper into sources myself), it would seem to me that the "rational" interpretations are the current modern consensus (with the possible exception of Thompson, who still explains it with legal changes rather than a true mania), to an extent discrediting Mackay. If that is indeed the case, the lead ought to be rewritten accordingly, and if it isn't then more modern interpretations need to be added. Also, the "available price data" seems a bit short and misplaced to me, and there are a few cn tags, but those are not fatal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per concerns highlighted by Wolfson above. I would like the sources listed in Further reading to be incorporated into the article body, but there haven't been major edits since March. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per John M. Wolfson's concerns. This has been stalled out since February. Hog Farm _Talk 13:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist progress stalled for too long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist stalled progress, concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.