# Talk:Permanent income hypothesis

This review is transcluded from Talk:Permanent income hypothesis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Card Carrying Parrot (talk · contribs) 00:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I will begin reviewing the article. Give me a good 3-7 days. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Prose:
The prose is clear and concise
Summarizes the article quite well
WP:MOS:
Needs better Accessibility (eg. add !scope to table)Y Done
Needs alt captionsY Done
Although this is not necessarily a shortcoming, I would recommend merging 'simple model' and 'extensions'Y Done
Reference Layout:
Everything is provided for easy access to look at (ISBN, JSTOR, DOI, ISSN, CiteSeerX)
No issues here
WP:RS:
Excellent sourcing (all sources are WP:RS; all are from academic sources)
Every paragraph is backed up by a source (except for the section with math in it)
Needs one minor improvement: after deleting some source, it was still left in (Was Milton Friedman a Socialist?, Block)
WP:NOR:
No original research is present
Broadness:
Covers the topic well
No major aspects omitted
No complex jargon, if present, it is defined
Focus:
No issues here; is quite focused on the article itself, not other things
Includes all major aspects
Neutral:
Includes a criticism section, and presents a wide variety of viewpoints
Is neutral, includes varying viewpoints, has a reception section which touches on both praise and criticism
Definitely represents viewpoints from a mainstream perspective
Stable:
This is usually an automatic pass, but on this one it looks like there are only a few editors who actively have done anything on the page, outside of the nominator, so it is especially true that it holds no issues here
Images:
Text is supported by images
No copyright violations

After painstakingly looking through every source (except for Worek 2010; the rest I was able to find somewhere), I have been able to verify all claims. Please remove Block 2010, because it is not cited anywhere (as in it is in the reflist, but not in any of the actual sfn templates). 

Closing Remarks

This article fits the WP:GA criteria. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@buidhe sorry to ping you, but does this review look okay? Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Card Carrying Parrot I think this is a good start, but I also think that some additional scrutiny is merited for topics that are controversial. For example, for evaluating the neutrality you note that the article "Includes a criticism section, and presents a wide variety of viewpoints". First of all, it's good practice to combine praise and criticism into a reception section for NPOV. Second of all, I would try to make sure the article creator is representing the sources correctly, instead of imposing his own viewpoint. For example, I checked the last source cited in the article and was unable to WP:VERIFY that it supported the content. You also want to check: does the article represent fairly mainstream views in economics, or is it slanted towards particular views? Here, a Google Scholar search can be helpful. Likewise, original research can be hard to spot without double checking at least some of the references. (This article claims "In an earlier study, Friedman, Kuznets (1945), he makes the case for a similar conception of income"—citing Friedman Kuznets 1945. But who says it's similar? No source is cited so it must be WP:OR).
That's why WP:Reviewing good articles says to double-check the sources: "At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means."
Sourcing: Academic sources are often reliable, but be on the lookout for predatory journals or others that don't publish mainstream views for their field. For example, Mises Institute is considered generally unreliable at WP:RSN, although it may be acceptable to cite for the views of the Mises Institute or its writers.
I cited an academic journal from the Mises Institute, which is peer reviewed, and only used it to cite the views of Austrians BasedMisesMont Pelerin 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The issue here is that it doesn't (or at least didn't) back up what it claims to support. Also, WP:SCHOLARSHIP cautions against journals that are dedicated to a particular point of view such as Austrian economics as they tend to be less rigorous. (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I would apply a lot of scrutiny to statements like, "Unresolved inconsistencies explain the failure of transitory Keynesian demand management techniques to achieve its policy targets". Is it a total failure or simply not completely successful? When in doubt, attribute to the person who said it: "Meghir states that unresolved inconsistencies..." Likewise, "The permanent income hypothesis has evidence supporting such a view..." what evidence? Who thinks it supports the hypothesis?
I cite a study (Shapiro et al), and say so in the text (also added "According to Costas Meghir") BasedMisesMont Pelerin 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Mentioning the authors of the study is a first step, but if you're going to mention it here you have to explain what evidence? What did they measure?  Who think it supports the PIH? (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The footnotes present information without giving a reliable source. Therefore, I added citation needed tags.
Done BasedMisesMont Pelerin 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Check that you fully understand the article and it doesn't contain unnecessary jargon; the GA criteria requires "understandable to an appropriately broad audience". The article does use acronyms without ever explaining what they are, such as "APC" and "MPC" in the table, or "MPS". It also uses difficult to understand language, such as "Nonrelief nonfarm families".
The "Nonrelief farm families" as an example (read: entire table) was copied from (Friedman 1957); MPC, APC, and MPS are linked (and I will add an explanatory footnote to every instance of usage) BasedMisesMont Pelerin 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You should not be copying and pasting from sources, that's often considered copyvio. Rewrite in your own words. (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Excessive quotations are used, which can harm neutrality and length and lead to copyright issues. Especially since there's no source cited to connect the second block quote with the subject of this article.  (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
BasedMises If you're going to intersperse your replies with my comments, please indent and add a signature to make them clearly distinguishable. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay. BasedMisesMont Pelerin 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't see a single advantage of these over ordinary Latin alphabet footnotes. I would "be bold" & change them, but it would take some time. For future reference, the template used is Template:Efn-lg.
Other articles, even rather technical ones in the scope of wikiproject economics, do not use these type of notes:

Shapley–Folkman lemma uses lowercase Latin letters
Brander–Spencer model uses Arabic numerals
I will probably change this when I get a moment, if nobody else gets there first or objects.


### Separate issues
(not sure what I'll do with these even if I had time):
1. Footnotes beta, gamma, delta, and eta all repeat the same stuff (distinction between MPC and MPS). Can those be consolidated to one footnote? Better yet, can we simply delete the later scattershot footnotes? (Why footnote MPC under Policy implications but not Empirical evidence, for example?)
2. Footnote gamma doesn't even lead to the "right thing." It's attached to APC (which is not defined anywhere, and only mentioned once, much farther down the page).
3. The table is labeled "Fig. 1". That's not ordinary style for Wikipedia. Why not just "as shown in the table below"? Is there a figure 2? What if a different figure 1 gets inserted above? The caption "Fig. 1: Analysis of consumption...." isn't typical either. Lastly, even in an academic paper (at least those publishers I know), this would be a table, not a figure. Is this perhaps a remnant of the formatting of the original source of this table?
--Officiallyover (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)