Wikipedia:Peer review/Jevons paradox/archive1

Jevons paradox

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because User:Lawrencekhoo and I have worked on it for some time and I want an outside perspective on the article. Is there too much cruft? Should there be more explanatory text for the nonexpert reader, or conversely more technical content? Any biases in the article? Any good examples we could add? Etc. Just looking for general ways to improve here.

Thanks, CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty good article. I don't notice much needing changes. I wonder if the 'rebound effect' really needs a paragraph in the lede, which I don't think covers the effect very well. --Gwern (contribs) 13:07 8 August 2010 (GMT)

Thanks for the kind words. About the second paragraph of the lead, it is not really about the rebound effect, instead it's a summary of how the Jevons paradox occurs. I've edited a bit to clear up this point. Regards, LK (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 15:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Consider a simple case: ..." <- this is simply not clear enough, reads like something from a textbook. There's no need for the extensive use of (in)elastic, a plainer more intuitive example would help the general reader.

• "A full analysis would also have to take ..." <-

• In general never have a whole paragraph uncited.

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting article about a paradox I'd never heard of. It made me think, which is good, but I found myself not entirely satisfied with its clarity, its sourcing, its focus, and its breadth. I should add that I'm not an economist, and I have no special knowledge of the language or methods of economics. Here are my thoughts:

• The paradox is defined in the first sentence as applying to all resources. Jevons focused on coal, apparently, and others have focused on other energy resources. I couldn't help but wonder if the paradox has been studied in relation to other resources such as water. It might make the article a bit stronger and broader if examples from areas other than energy-related industry were included.

• Even though the article is well-sourced in places, parts of it lack in-line citations to a reliable source. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every extraordinary claim, and every direct quotation. The second paragraph of the "History" section, for example, cites no source(s) even though it contains information that is not common knowledge.

• "Hence, it would tend to increase, rather than reduce, the rate at which England's deposits of coal were being depleted.[4][2]" - This is a minor point, but the standard practice with serial citations is to arrange them in ascending order; i.e., [2][4].

• The "Rebound effect" subsection has the tone of a textbook rather than an encyclopedia. The difference is subtle, but the voice speaking in "Rebound effect" sounds like the voice of someone who knows and is explaining to someone who doesn't know. This is different from the voice of someone who is reporting what the experts have said. Instead of saying "One way to understand the Jevons paradox is to observe that an increase... ", you might write something like "Alcott Blake, professor of something at somewhere, explains the Jevons... ". In other words, attribute explanations to an expert rather than presenting them without attribution. The beginning of the second paragraph of this subsection leaps out because it addresses the reader directly: "Consider a simple case... ". This is the voice of a teacher explaining something to a class rather than the voice of someone neutral reporting the observations of an expert. I might add that the explanation is not only not directly attributed to anyone, it is not sourced to anyone. Ditto for the next paragraph. So where does it come from? Incidentally, the voice is better in the "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate" subsection, where ideas are directly attributed by name to three economists.

• Link UK Atomic Energy Authority and California Energy Commission?

• Briefly explain neo-classical growth theory? Most readers will know nothing about it.

• "Several points can be raised against this argument." - In this final section, the article seems to turn into a direct argument rather than the reporting of a controversy. Is the controversy about the paradox, or is the controversy about something else?

• "As the Jevons paradox only applies to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, interventions that impose conservation standards that simultaneously increase costs do not display the Jevons paradox." - This is the unsourced finale, but it seems circular in its logic and not quite consistent with the first sentence of the lead. Does the Jevons paradox apply only to fuels, or does it apply to a broader class of resources? Does any expert (or anyone at all) think that the Jevons paradox would apply to a carbon tax? If not, the last sentence simply states the obvious, saying essentially that the Jevons paradox does not apply to things to which it does not apply.

• Should any further macroeconomic ideas be included in the article? You mention peak oil, and Jevons was concerned about dwindling coal reserves. Did Jevons include any end-game calculations? Did he, for example, calculate a likely rate-of-change in coal consumption in the U.K. and match total consumption over time against total known reserves? Did he have any notion of something we might call "peak coal"? Do contemporary economists like Khazzoom and Brookes say anything about "peak energy" from all sources? Do they say what they think will happen economically if no government action is taken to conserve energy? Have they got models for that, I mean? Do any economists think that the best government policy with regard to energy consumption is to let unregulated markets do whatever they like? If so, who are they, and what is their reasoning? Do some economists fall between the extremes of "no regulation" and "carbon tax or the equivalent"?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)