Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Franklin D. Roosevelt/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Franklin D. Roosevelt

[edit]

This article has large portions of text with no attached sources. I don't trust the information without that, and I don't think anyone else should either. Please assist in adding inline sources to this article. Also, please verify the economic data and charts to make sure there is no original research. They are voting to make it a "featured article" and it is troublesome that so many are willing to feature it as such when there is such an obvious deficiency of attached sources. I don't think we should be so careless in putting our stamp of approval on something like this. RJII 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sentence on period of fastest economic growth: Underlying information on GDP from 1930 on is at the Bureau of Economic Affairs[1], and it looks like the data on growth is taken from there. It is clear that the period of FDR's first term and the period of WWII were among the periods of most rapid growth experienced in the 20th century (when the graph is pushed back, you'll see another high period of growth in the 20s as well). I haven't done an analysis to compare periods, and I suspect it depends on how you segment (e.g., if you take the 12 years of FDR and compare them to other 12 year stretches, I'll be surprised if any of them come close, but if you compare in 5 year increments or by decades you may get a different result). I also think the data shown may not be adjusted for inflation (which will greatly reduce growth in the first term period - in constant dollars it is less impressive). I also suspect that to the extent there is trustworthy data, there may be a period around the time of Jackson that would compare (pre 1837 crisis), but would be surprised if any time in the late 19th century (aka, the REAL great depresssion, aka, the gilded age) would compare because of deflation and its attendant effects (but, on an inflation adjusted basis, maybe). My conclusion: that sentance of the article is likely factually accurate but we can do better as far as adding meaningful material. The attempt to identify the period of "fastest" growth is meaningless (except to those trying to show what a great job, for example, Clinton, did - remember in reading the data that the data for the 90s is quaterly, and Clinton has some great numbers). I'll work on this as I have some time (having already done a fair bit on the article today). But the graphs are each cited to public information for their source - why would that be original research? Sam 02:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) I stand corrected - the graph on GDP is in real 2000 dollars (the left hand column of the BEA data. The graph is accurate and meaningful; I am changing the text to get rid of the comparisons to other periods, since even if accurate I do not think it is terribly informative. Sam 02:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit misleading to show GDP growth but not GDP itself? GDP recovery was very slow. With just that chart, it looks like the economy was doing great. RJII 02:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how much depth we want on economics; the article is already being criticized for being overly long. Yes, it is easier to grow a lousy GDP quickly (witness the growth rates of China and the US today - China outstrips our growth rate by a mile, but I'd much prefer the US economy to the Chinese!), but a steadily increasing rate of GDP says somethings going right. Another interesting comparison would be US growth versus growth in other major economies in the period (Germany, UK, France). But for that level of detail, I'd think about a daughter article. Lot's of people can come up with different reasons for charts being good or better to show the economy in his term - I don't know how to make others, and we'd need verbage to explain, but I'd put the raw numbers for GDP high on the list of meaningful figures. As you note below, the unemployment figures aren't necessary as meaningful as I'd like - a big problem with the raw figures, I understand, is they leave out people who have given up seeking work, and I believe this had a big impact in the 1930-34 time frame. But it would be useful to show year by year breakdown of total unemployment. The aggregates given in the text make the problem sound better than the worse years and worse than the better years. Just some thoughts. Sam 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how about the unemployment problem? If there is going to be charts, there should be one showing the massive unemployment. We need to see the negative as well as the positive. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make charts. RJII 02:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these charts do not show the context. They limit the years shown to the years during FDR's term, instead of showing the longer term trends. It's kind of meaningless visually. RJII 03:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chart is fine as long as the text has been changed (I changed it) to eliminate the comparison's to other periods; that's what didn't match. A broader range would show what you'd expect - the disaster of the crash and depression during the four years prior and rocky but solid post-war growth during Truman's term - and I'd tend to tell those stories on the pages of the relevant Presidents. Expand it by two years and you do make the point that it's hard not to look good when you're being compared to 30-32, and that may be a good point to make. I'd offer to do a chart expanding it by two years if I knew how - the data is there on the BEA's web page if someone wants to do it.Sam 03:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Note: a chart showing the same data (debt as a pct. of GNP) is included on the Herbert Hoover page for the earlier four years; I've added direct links to the discussion there. Also, it seems both charts show the period immediately around FDR's term now, and that GDP is shown (description still talks about rate of increase). I think this should address the question of these particular chart. I've made significant other changes to the FDR section at issue, which was anemic before, incorporating discussion of the increase in the tax rates and base. I've also deleted a number of unsupported sources, and see others have been adding citations. This should continue. Sam 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • All quotations should have WP:FOOTNOTEs or other forms of inline citations.
  • Comment: done. There are still other places where citations would be useful, but now all quotations are verified and cited. Sam 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Administration, Cabinet, and Supreme Court Appointments 1933-1945".
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • he is often considered among the greatest presidents.
    • Roosevelt is considered by many to be a great president
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • Comment: I've removed some weasel words, and others will show a link to a detailed article providing the support. If you see more left that are not supported, please note them. Thanks!Sam 02:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Franklin_D._Roosevelt/archive1&oldid=192040839"