This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economic globalization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Economic globalization was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 28, 2011). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on August 2011. Further details are available here. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 September 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marlee Gaddy. Peer reviewers: Tsweeney617, BryanC194.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviawaresk, MarlaContreras, Cgrissett, Brian.Oehme.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Our country is an experiment in Globalization. Currently there would be very little economic globalization without China. Sadly it seems then, that economic globalization is dependent on a country that controls the size of the middle class work force in their country to manipulate their currency valuation position in the world for the benefit of a priviledged few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.162.141 ( talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Detail some negative effects, instead of merely describing efforts to solve them. Were the paragraphs that described the negative effects deleted? (Mar 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.77.98 ( talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think history would be good. I found this .pdf that might be of use: Economic Globalization: Trends, Risks, and Risks Prevention It's an article on how the U.N. assesses economic globalization. I think might do a section on Globalization vs. Economic Globalization. Does anyone object to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyod ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Group 1: Add your ideas here about what sections and some references you would like to add to this article Kas205 ( talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It was said in class that we should do a history section and do a section comparing the difference between globalization and economic globalization. Since these two are so general they should probably be the next 2 sections after the intro--
Ler321 (
talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I also posted a comment on the talk page of globalization saying that we were doing a project and any help is welcome-- Ler321 ( talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Great. I would like to focus on alternatives to economic globalization. I found a book that I think sounds interesting and relevant. Along with discussing alternatives, I will be talking about some case studies of exploited countries to use as examples. This may overlap with other group members sections, but I'm sure we can do some clean-up and readjusting to make the article flow.
Since we have 5 group members, I think we should allocate 1 person to the history section and 1 person to the comparison section. Any takers? There is a ton of information on economic globalization in China, if someone wants to focus on that too (but there may already be enough information on that topic on Wikipedia already).
Also, I've been searching google books and several books that I found are also available in the Econ Library (in Posvar). So that's just a heads up for a helpful resource.
These are a few resources I plan on using so far: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/sep/15/2 http://books.google.com/books?id=MywOAoRdJP4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=economic+globalization&hl=en&ei=K7jbTa2UC8ry0gHG7OHADw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=DznGtScIz1oC&pg=PA1&dq=economic+globalization+challenges&hl=en&ei=CrzbTZjhIM_dgQeTiIkP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20challenges&f=false -- Kas205 ( talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I can work on the history section. I'll hit the major events that led to what economic globalization is today. I found a few sources at books.google.com too:
http://books.google.com/books?id=O2m5ARhXICEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=economic+globalization+history&hl=en&ei=C-zbTevtKcHdgQfl1tTvDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20history&f=false
and
Let me know if there is anything else specific you think should go in this section-- Ler321 ( talk) 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there is room for effects of economic globalization on culture or economics in general as globalization has the some of that outline and it makes sense [user: talk:brucebeckerman/talk}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucesbeckerman ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Here are some links to possible sources http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2258 , http://knol.google.com/k/effects-on-globalization-in-culture-differentiation#, [[[User:Brucesbeckerman|Brucesbeckerman]] ( talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)}
Maybe we could do something like positive, and negative consequences of economic globalization. We could focus on all the good things that it does for the global economy, as well as how it tends to exploit certain groups of people for the benefit of another group. I will look up more after my night class, if you guys think that would be an alright section. We could possibly also have a section that focuses on simply listing some of the most prominent corporations that are partaking in economic globalization, and give link to their websites or something like that. Let me know what you guys think, I'll be in class til about 9:15, but can surely work on it after class. Rsg20 ( talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Good points. Do you have any preference on what topic you would like to do? I think specific groups of exploitation would be good. As for individual corporations, that may be a slippery slope. Have you found a resource that list the varying corporations? If so, one could add the varying ramifications in which they implement economic globalization. Tyod ( talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I could do specific groups exploited by economic globalization. And you were right about the slippery slope, it would be more difficult than I had thought once I started looking. Is there something else you guys would like me to work on? I figured I would start with the exploitation of women due to globalization in "Women in the Japanese Workforce" By Bev Bishop, and work my way from there, surely there will be a lot out there. Rsg20 ( talk) 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay I added some of the history section. I know its not much-I plan on adding to it. Let me know if there is anything significant you think I should add.--
Ler321 (
talk) 18:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks good. I was wondering what we are supposed to add and at what pace. I know it would be helpful if we discussed our views together after class so that we can make some real progress as a group. I feel like we has some good ideas, but we were talking at each other with no real unity. Would be nice to sit down and jot a to-do list. I like that you started the history in detail because that is a requirement regardless of our future topic targets [[[User:Brucesbeckerman|Brucesbeckerman]] (
talk) 02:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)]
Ler321, a good idea would be adding current information on the historical implications economic globalization has in today's markets. One thought is the cross-continental aspect of it. I think it's pretty good and if you add 2000's era information, I think it'll be spot on. Keep it up :) Tyod ( talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we all need to talk about this today in class to get a good idea in where we're at. I'm lost but I think there will be some clarity after today's class. Tyod ( talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I added a new section entitled "Irreversibility". I does need expanded, so comments are much needed. Here's what I wrote so far, "According to China's prominent economist Gao Shanquan, economic globalization is an irreversible trend due to the fact the world markets are in great need of science and information technologies. With the growing demands of science and technology, Shanquan states that with world markets take on an "increasing cross-border division of labor" that works its way down to every facet of globalized markets from both developed and developing nations." A review and expansion would be great! Tyod ( talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a section I'm probably going to call "solutions to exploitation due to economic globalization"... Ryan I believe you are doing a section on exploitation so my section should probably appear right under yours. For now I think it will fit best under Tyler's. Looks lovely so far everyone -- Kas205 ( talk) 22:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I just added my section. Ryan maybe you can focus on the positive aspects of economic globalization instead? That way we can merge our sections together to make it more of one mega-section about the debate over globalization? I'd perfer not to start completely over but if my section sounds too opinionated I can try something else. --
Kas205 (
talk) 00:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys sorry, I've been super busy with school and work. But that sounds great, I will work on the positive aspects of globalization. I'm gonna be working on it a lot tonight, so thanks for bearing with me. Rsg20 ( talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
AND also.. Where and how do you guys think I should put my section about the positive aspects of globalization? Rsg20 ( talk) 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I also added a new section "informal reviews" to our talk page so we can distinguish our specific goals and tasks from other groups -- Kas205 ( talk) 01:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
hey ryan sorry if I sound bossy, you're doing fine! Everyone is just suggesting that we keep the article neutral and I already made it kind of biased (which I need to adjust a little anyway) so if you want to add some positive things to the "debate over globalization" section I think that would be good. -- Kas205 ( talk) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just added a section called "Effects on Wold Cultures". I still have some citations to add and some more information, but it takes me forever to fiture out the formatting stuff and I wanted to get it added before I refined it. If any of you think this is good or bad, please let me know. I think it was relevant because it economic globalization effects cultures and cultures then effect economic globalizations direction. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems that there may be some fine lines between economic globalization and globalization. I looked into the McDonaldization article and though I see correlations, it's going to be interesting to tie them in together. Maybe it's just an oversight thing, but I think economic globalization is pretty broad and can encompass a lot of ideas. Could someone guide me on what to expand for irreversibility? Is there anything that people want to know more about? People haven't commented on my segment...(not to sound selfish) Tyod ( talk) 01:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys I just added my sections about positive effects. Let me know if you guys think anything should be added or changed. Rsg20 ( talk) 01:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Piotr for your input. I am going to use McDonaldization as a key argument tonight. I think that will really add to the legitimacy of our post. I see how the argument should not be focused on general globalization but rather it should focus on economic style influences and changes. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I added a MacDonalization background to my culture part. Maybe you have some other ideas on what to add that could beef up our Effects on Culure portion. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I also like the irreversibility portion. I can see some avenues open for example pertaining to a specific case or two where interdependence is sighted besides just theory, but it's a great start. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is a new section we can use to evaluate the other groups pages: -- Kas205 ( talk) 01:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we can use some of the group working on archaic globalization's techniques. I like how they divide their talk page into separate sections depending on their issues/ideas. It seems that may be an easier way to see what each other has to say (especially since our to-do list section is getting so long!). Maybe since we are both working on globalization projects we could link our pages together (this could possibly work in the history section) -- Kas205 ( talk) 01:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That could definitely work, also with our comparison section-although I don't know if they are planning on doing a comparison section too. I also looked at the Social Web page. I'm not sure how much of the page was done to begin with but they did a good job adding to and editing it. I left a comment on their talk page.-- Ler321 ( talk) 19:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I also like that archaic globalization talked about what goods were traded and who traded them. I think that would be extremely hard to do with our article since there are so many examples out there, but I'll at least try to highlight a few that are benefiting in my positive aspects section. If anyone can think of any other way to incorporate that idea let me know! Rsg20 ( talk) 23:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's looking good so far, guys! I think it looks pretty professional for what you've done up until this point, so just keep it up. I had a few notes:
Hope this helps, and good job guys! -- Rsoruss ( talk) 01:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I read the section on Social Web. It was pretty cool. They talked about the web growing from it's origins in the 70's to it's current evolution and use today and mingling with the media. They listed facebook, myspace, and other blogging sites as instances of social media. I would argue the web as an entity is a social process. It gives us possible ways to go with influences of economic globalization and its influence on culture. They have some work to do, but it was a nice outline for how it will follow. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This article looks great so far. The only thing that I could think of improving would be the section the narrowing of the gap between rich and poor. The paragraph seems a bit repetitive and doesn't give much information. I also think that you should include another opinion on the irreversibility subject Ebw7 ( talk) 23:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll add some suggestions in this section.
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I will work on improving the "debate over exploitation" section. The sources are mostly books about globalization as a whole, but I will work to add more variety. -- Kas205 ( talk) 16:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys,
I think you are hitting a lot of main points. On a lot of wiki pages I see more topics within the discussion. Im not sure where you can expand, but its something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc106 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys,
Good work so far. It looks like your effects on world culture part is still being developed but I would like to suggest that maybe for that section you could add in different regions, past and present and how it has changed over time. If there are any prominent events that really helped shape society they could be added and given some explanation.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 23:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Volunteer Marek, it seems that you have a thorough knowledge in regards to economics and globalization. Your responses alone consist of whole articles and I don't understand why haven't you contributed to the article besides reviewing. Grant it, your critiques have been constructive, it seems that your discourse has a specific ideological track in which you want to steer it. Please don't take this the wrong way and I don't want my inquiry to sound combative but it seems that you have a lot to contribute but no producing anything substantive in regards to publishing besides comments. Tyod ( talk) 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys... by now I assume your pretty much done,so I just wanted to say the article looks great and the sections seemed to be better organized and broken down well. good job..-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
The last paragraph in technology starting with: "Multinational corporations reorganized production...", could be addressed. There are several 'sentences' that are not complete. -Artful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.133.189 ( talk) 21:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: By the early 1900s, it was rare to come across a town that was not influenced by foreign markets—whether it be in labor, prices, or any other policy of business.[5] With advances in boat technology and the inventions of the railroad and telephone, communication with other parts of the country and world was readily available. Towns were no longer limited to what they alone could produce and what the next two towns over would trade with them. People everywhere had the accessibility and resources to obtain goods from the other side of the world.
This is true but it all came to an end, first with the outbreak of World War I and then with the Great Depression. International trade and capital flows collapsed, and countries began imposing immigration quotas. The History section is missing the subsequent development where there was no globalization until it began picking up again in the 1970's.
Some graphs here may be helpful. Here is one which illustrates this development pretty nicely [1] (you can't copy the graph itself because it is copyrighted, but if you can get the underlying data you can reconstruct it yourself). Here's another good source btw, [2]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Globalization#History is very poor when it comes to aftermath of World War I, and it of course concerns more than just economic aspects. But it may contain a useful source or two, or some content you may want to adapt. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your suggestions. I'm reworking some of the history section now. I'm also looking into those resources. Thanks again--
Ler321 (
talk) 19:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help I will go back and try to fix those sources. Some of the sentences I struggeled to find sources for becuase I felt they were more or less common knowledge. I came up with the sentences from a colaboration of readings I have done on this topic through my studies at Pitt. How would you suggest I cite things that aren't necessarily lifted from another source?--
Ler321 (
talk) 12:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I also have a question--why is Investopedia not a credible source? It is essentially "wikipedia" for the financial world. You can find many scholaraly articles here and is often times referenced by the Wall Street Journal and Marketwatch.com. I thought this would be a good reference when talking about the capital market.-- Ler321 ( talk) 12:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this is great text. However, there are a couple of points to be cautious about:
Have fun! bobrayner ( talk) 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying everything to try and make the image smaller, but I can't figure it out. Does anyone know how to do this? Rsg20 ( talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think I added the correct caption, although I could be wrong. And I was wondering where to add the citation on the image page, because I do not see cite as an option. I was thinking it should go under the summary section of the image page, but it would also make sense to go under the licensing section. Sorry for the confusion, I'm just new at this. Rsg20 ( talk) 03:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
With regard to this image, please be careful and precise. What the graph shows is NOT "Real Per Capita GDP" (which is a "level" variable - say, 10 trillion per year) but rather the growth rate of "Real Per Capita GDP" (which is a rate variable - say 2% per year). This is a bit like confusing "we traveled 10,000 miles" with "we were driving at 60 miles per hour" (basically the graph is saying "We drove 60 miles" where what it means to say is "we drove 60 miles per hour"). Two different things. Honestly, labeling "Real Per Capita GDP" as "Percent" just doesn't make (mathematical, logical, economic) sense. This is from the Dollar and Kraay paper I suggested but it should be labeled correctly. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering if my section on "debate over exploitation" is too opinionated. I understand I need to add a couple various sources to expand the credibility. And I think the article is nicely balanced as we also have a section on the positive effects of economic globalization. However is there anything in particular I can add or subtract to this article to make it more "encyclopedia-like"? thanks! Kas205 ( talk) 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I merged the positive and solutions sections into one main section about the debate over exploitation but now everything under that section is also merged into the debate section. is there a way to fix this? or is there a way to make little subsections out of the positive and solutions sections? Kas205 ( talk) 17:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks! Kas205 ( talk) 17:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Does there need to be a cite for the word economic globalization in the beginning? I think it's a little bit self-defeating to the overall article and the link is inconsistent with its definition. It's just an observation I made... Tyod ( talk) 14:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
GUYS! I'm sorry! I tried to edit my section again. I was doing more research and wanted to add some stuff and a few resources and it changed the heading on me! I swear I didn't even touch it! Please help me fix this!
-- Ler321 ( talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
never mind i got it under control! However, I added a sentence to the end of my section and can't seem to be able to cite it. I have all of the information and have tried adding in the "cite template" and it won't work. I know how to do it but every time I do, nothing happens. Any ideas??-- Ler321 ( talk) 17:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The Citation showed up on the bottom of the page (its number 5). But an inline reference won't show up next to the sentence. Let me know....-- Ler321 ( talk) 17:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you...I finally figured it out but I still don't know what I was doing wrong-my curser was at the end of the sentence I was trying to cite...I don't know. Thanks-- Ler321 ( talk) 20:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
As the assignment of a GA reviewer to this article seems to be delayed, here are my new review comments:
Once you address those issues, you will find the Good Article review much easier.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"* general: insufficient ref density as mentioned above; many references are missing pages. Clean-up of the references is needed (why is the link in Lawrence inactive, why are there two different references for the same source like Shangquan?)"
I don't know what you mean by this? Tyod ( talk) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems that statement in link citation #11 is quite vague and could be debated and it's not really needed in the description of globalization. Also, globalization was still apparent during the time period between WWI and WWII, it was just segmented by ally powers. Either way, I think the overall History section is quite solid. Tyod ( talk) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll give this article a review either tonight or tomorrow, and gradually look through to see what things may be modified. I'll do the best I can on my end. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
hi Wizardman! Thanks for taking the time to review this article. We've addressed some of the issues brought up by Piotrus. Do you have any further suggestions? Thanks Kas205 ( talk) 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Wizardman! I would definitely love to hear some feedback on what constitute the article in being a good one. Tyod ( talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Here are the issues I noticed with the article:
I'll put this on hold, and once theses issues are fixed I will re-read the article and see if I have any other issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
most of the issues have been addressed if you want to do a second read through thanks Kas205 ( talk) 22:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please get back to us with what else we may want to add to get to GA status. Rsg20 ( talk) 02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's my second run though of comments. Here's the clerical changes:
And here's a few things for discussion I thought up. These are not necessarily actionable, and is more for further improvements, though I would at least like them looked over before I close this:
That's everything I have. Once the above concerns are addressed, then I'll feel comfortable passing the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Closing review as failed, though it is close to a GA should anyone want to pick it up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
For two days I have been trying to log in and make some changes and it won't let me log in, yet gmail lets me log in on their page? What should I do? Bruce b 71.60.41.94 ( talk) 15:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Piotr! My password works fine on gmail. Something hates me on wikipedia. I tried both browsers but they still wont work? I have a paragraph to add and some sources to add. It's not about my effort. I have had one issue after another and I feel bad I can't make the difference to get us a better status. Bruce b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.41.94 ( talk) 02:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok guys, Added some more to the culture section and am looking for more articles and citations. Don't want to stop the work until we make this thing improve status. Let me know if you need anything. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 20:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Piotr, I used one of your sources to add more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.41.94 ( talk) 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I cleaned up some of the issues in my culture section. Just FYI. There were some citation formatting issues and another fomatting issue. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 17:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Localisation (economics) redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland ( talk) 20:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I really like this article and there is much to commend it. I wonder how you would feel if a few sentences in section 1 (history) were made just a little more inclusive: Current: "By the early 1900s, it was rare to come across a town that was not influenced by foreign markets—whether it be in labor, prices, or any other policy of business.[7] With advances in ship building technology and the inventions of the railroad and telephone, communication with other parts of the country and world was readily available." "The country" sounds like the writer has a specific country in mind (America?) I suggest: "villages that were not..." and "with other parts of one's country and world...." How do others feel about this minor alteration? Gabarker ( talk) 08:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Some copyediting assistance needed to clean up the citations and bibliography for this article. See WP:REFS. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Re [10], @ Bobrayner:? EllenCT ( talk) 00:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I also object to [11]. EllenCT ( talk) 15:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Yetman has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
A very comprehensive and thorough article.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Yetman has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 18:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economic globalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economic globalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Economic globalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Section Technology "Globalization is about interconnecting people around the world beyond the physical barrier of geographical boundaries." The entire section talks about interconnected trade, which is goods, not "people".
Section Policy and Government: "This highly dynamic worldwide system and powerful ramifications." is not a properly constructed sentence.
Section Multinational corporations "leaving some behind." Find a better description. Economically displaced, for instance. "ECLAC states", no definition of ECLAC, should be spelt out upon first use. "Some global brands were found to do that before but they took some methods to support the labors soon after." is not a properly constructed statement.
Section Race to the bottom Not mentioned: Race to the bottom also includes decline in professions/wage rates/job security in developed countries. The same thing occurs, iterated in Section Mistreatment for instance, within developed countries.
Section Economic growth and poverty reduction GDP per capita gain is irrelevant because GDP is not distributed "per capita". The vast majority of India's poor, for instance, is still remarkably poor.
Section Health Risks "The article argued that time is of the essence; in short time is a necessity for an individual's health whether the subject is behavior, vising the doctor’s office, and essential care." is not a properly constructed sentence.
Section Notes 4 - is not a link nor proper citation. Who is "James"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.139.126 ( talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
What are the major causes of the global economy? 197.239.5.62 ( talk) 11:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economic globalization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Economic globalization was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 28, 2011). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on August 2011. Further details are available here. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 September 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marlee Gaddy. Peer reviewers: Tsweeney617, BryanC194.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviawaresk, MarlaContreras, Cgrissett, Brian.Oehme.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Our country is an experiment in Globalization. Currently there would be very little economic globalization without China. Sadly it seems then, that economic globalization is dependent on a country that controls the size of the middle class work force in their country to manipulate their currency valuation position in the world for the benefit of a priviledged few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.162.141 ( talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Detail some negative effects, instead of merely describing efforts to solve them. Were the paragraphs that described the negative effects deleted? (Mar 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.77.98 ( talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think history would be good. I found this .pdf that might be of use: Economic Globalization: Trends, Risks, and Risks Prevention It's an article on how the U.N. assesses economic globalization. I think might do a section on Globalization vs. Economic Globalization. Does anyone object to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyod ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Group 1: Add your ideas here about what sections and some references you would like to add to this article Kas205 ( talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It was said in class that we should do a history section and do a section comparing the difference between globalization and economic globalization. Since these two are so general they should probably be the next 2 sections after the intro--
Ler321 (
talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I also posted a comment on the talk page of globalization saying that we were doing a project and any help is welcome-- Ler321 ( talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Great. I would like to focus on alternatives to economic globalization. I found a book that I think sounds interesting and relevant. Along with discussing alternatives, I will be talking about some case studies of exploited countries to use as examples. This may overlap with other group members sections, but I'm sure we can do some clean-up and readjusting to make the article flow.
Since we have 5 group members, I think we should allocate 1 person to the history section and 1 person to the comparison section. Any takers? There is a ton of information on economic globalization in China, if someone wants to focus on that too (but there may already be enough information on that topic on Wikipedia already).
Also, I've been searching google books and several books that I found are also available in the Econ Library (in Posvar). So that's just a heads up for a helpful resource.
These are a few resources I plan on using so far: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/sep/15/2 http://books.google.com/books?id=MywOAoRdJP4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=economic+globalization&hl=en&ei=K7jbTa2UC8ry0gHG7OHADw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=DznGtScIz1oC&pg=PA1&dq=economic+globalization+challenges&hl=en&ei=CrzbTZjhIM_dgQeTiIkP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20challenges&f=false -- Kas205 ( talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I can work on the history section. I'll hit the major events that led to what economic globalization is today. I found a few sources at books.google.com too:
http://books.google.com/books?id=O2m5ARhXICEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=economic+globalization+history&hl=en&ei=C-zbTevtKcHdgQfl1tTvDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20history&f=false
and
Let me know if there is anything else specific you think should go in this section-- Ler321 ( talk) 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there is room for effects of economic globalization on culture or economics in general as globalization has the some of that outline and it makes sense [user: talk:brucebeckerman/talk}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucesbeckerman ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Here are some links to possible sources http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2258 , http://knol.google.com/k/effects-on-globalization-in-culture-differentiation#, [[[User:Brucesbeckerman|Brucesbeckerman]] ( talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)}
Maybe we could do something like positive, and negative consequences of economic globalization. We could focus on all the good things that it does for the global economy, as well as how it tends to exploit certain groups of people for the benefit of another group. I will look up more after my night class, if you guys think that would be an alright section. We could possibly also have a section that focuses on simply listing some of the most prominent corporations that are partaking in economic globalization, and give link to their websites or something like that. Let me know what you guys think, I'll be in class til about 9:15, but can surely work on it after class. Rsg20 ( talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Good points. Do you have any preference on what topic you would like to do? I think specific groups of exploitation would be good. As for individual corporations, that may be a slippery slope. Have you found a resource that list the varying corporations? If so, one could add the varying ramifications in which they implement economic globalization. Tyod ( talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I could do specific groups exploited by economic globalization. And you were right about the slippery slope, it would be more difficult than I had thought once I started looking. Is there something else you guys would like me to work on? I figured I would start with the exploitation of women due to globalization in "Women in the Japanese Workforce" By Bev Bishop, and work my way from there, surely there will be a lot out there. Rsg20 ( talk) 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay I added some of the history section. I know its not much-I plan on adding to it. Let me know if there is anything significant you think I should add.--
Ler321 (
talk) 18:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks good. I was wondering what we are supposed to add and at what pace. I know it would be helpful if we discussed our views together after class so that we can make some real progress as a group. I feel like we has some good ideas, but we were talking at each other with no real unity. Would be nice to sit down and jot a to-do list. I like that you started the history in detail because that is a requirement regardless of our future topic targets [[[User:Brucesbeckerman|Brucesbeckerman]] (
talk) 02:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)]
Ler321, a good idea would be adding current information on the historical implications economic globalization has in today's markets. One thought is the cross-continental aspect of it. I think it's pretty good and if you add 2000's era information, I think it'll be spot on. Keep it up :) Tyod ( talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we all need to talk about this today in class to get a good idea in where we're at. I'm lost but I think there will be some clarity after today's class. Tyod ( talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I added a new section entitled "Irreversibility". I does need expanded, so comments are much needed. Here's what I wrote so far, "According to China's prominent economist Gao Shanquan, economic globalization is an irreversible trend due to the fact the world markets are in great need of science and information technologies. With the growing demands of science and technology, Shanquan states that with world markets take on an "increasing cross-border division of labor" that works its way down to every facet of globalized markets from both developed and developing nations." A review and expansion would be great! Tyod ( talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a section I'm probably going to call "solutions to exploitation due to economic globalization"... Ryan I believe you are doing a section on exploitation so my section should probably appear right under yours. For now I think it will fit best under Tyler's. Looks lovely so far everyone -- Kas205 ( talk) 22:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I just added my section. Ryan maybe you can focus on the positive aspects of economic globalization instead? That way we can merge our sections together to make it more of one mega-section about the debate over globalization? I'd perfer not to start completely over but if my section sounds too opinionated I can try something else. --
Kas205 (
talk) 00:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys sorry, I've been super busy with school and work. But that sounds great, I will work on the positive aspects of globalization. I'm gonna be working on it a lot tonight, so thanks for bearing with me. Rsg20 ( talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
AND also.. Where and how do you guys think I should put my section about the positive aspects of globalization? Rsg20 ( talk) 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I also added a new section "informal reviews" to our talk page so we can distinguish our specific goals and tasks from other groups -- Kas205 ( talk) 01:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
hey ryan sorry if I sound bossy, you're doing fine! Everyone is just suggesting that we keep the article neutral and I already made it kind of biased (which I need to adjust a little anyway) so if you want to add some positive things to the "debate over globalization" section I think that would be good. -- Kas205 ( talk) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just added a section called "Effects on Wold Cultures". I still have some citations to add and some more information, but it takes me forever to fiture out the formatting stuff and I wanted to get it added before I refined it. If any of you think this is good or bad, please let me know. I think it was relevant because it economic globalization effects cultures and cultures then effect economic globalizations direction. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems that there may be some fine lines between economic globalization and globalization. I looked into the McDonaldization article and though I see correlations, it's going to be interesting to tie them in together. Maybe it's just an oversight thing, but I think economic globalization is pretty broad and can encompass a lot of ideas. Could someone guide me on what to expand for irreversibility? Is there anything that people want to know more about? People haven't commented on my segment...(not to sound selfish) Tyod ( talk) 01:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys I just added my sections about positive effects. Let me know if you guys think anything should be added or changed. Rsg20 ( talk) 01:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Piotr for your input. I am going to use McDonaldization as a key argument tonight. I think that will really add to the legitimacy of our post. I see how the argument should not be focused on general globalization but rather it should focus on economic style influences and changes. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I added a MacDonalization background to my culture part. Maybe you have some other ideas on what to add that could beef up our Effects on Culure portion. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I also like the irreversibility portion. I can see some avenues open for example pertaining to a specific case or two where interdependence is sighted besides just theory, but it's a great start. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is a new section we can use to evaluate the other groups pages: -- Kas205 ( talk) 01:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we can use some of the group working on archaic globalization's techniques. I like how they divide their talk page into separate sections depending on their issues/ideas. It seems that may be an easier way to see what each other has to say (especially since our to-do list section is getting so long!). Maybe since we are both working on globalization projects we could link our pages together (this could possibly work in the history section) -- Kas205 ( talk) 01:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That could definitely work, also with our comparison section-although I don't know if they are planning on doing a comparison section too. I also looked at the Social Web page. I'm not sure how much of the page was done to begin with but they did a good job adding to and editing it. I left a comment on their talk page.-- Ler321 ( talk) 19:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I also like that archaic globalization talked about what goods were traded and who traded them. I think that would be extremely hard to do with our article since there are so many examples out there, but I'll at least try to highlight a few that are benefiting in my positive aspects section. If anyone can think of any other way to incorporate that idea let me know! Rsg20 ( talk) 23:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's looking good so far, guys! I think it looks pretty professional for what you've done up until this point, so just keep it up. I had a few notes:
Hope this helps, and good job guys! -- Rsoruss ( talk) 01:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I read the section on Social Web. It was pretty cool. They talked about the web growing from it's origins in the 70's to it's current evolution and use today and mingling with the media. They listed facebook, myspace, and other blogging sites as instances of social media. I would argue the web as an entity is a social process. It gives us possible ways to go with influences of economic globalization and its influence on culture. They have some work to do, but it was a nice outline for how it will follow. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This article looks great so far. The only thing that I could think of improving would be the section the narrowing of the gap between rich and poor. The paragraph seems a bit repetitive and doesn't give much information. I also think that you should include another opinion on the irreversibility subject Ebw7 ( talk) 23:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll add some suggestions in this section.
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I will work on improving the "debate over exploitation" section. The sources are mostly books about globalization as a whole, but I will work to add more variety. -- Kas205 ( talk) 16:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys,
I think you are hitting a lot of main points. On a lot of wiki pages I see more topics within the discussion. Im not sure where you can expand, but its something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc106 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys,
Good work so far. It looks like your effects on world culture part is still being developed but I would like to suggest that maybe for that section you could add in different regions, past and present and how it has changed over time. If there are any prominent events that really helped shape society they could be added and given some explanation.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 23:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Volunteer Marek, it seems that you have a thorough knowledge in regards to economics and globalization. Your responses alone consist of whole articles and I don't understand why haven't you contributed to the article besides reviewing. Grant it, your critiques have been constructive, it seems that your discourse has a specific ideological track in which you want to steer it. Please don't take this the wrong way and I don't want my inquiry to sound combative but it seems that you have a lot to contribute but no producing anything substantive in regards to publishing besides comments. Tyod ( talk) 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys... by now I assume your pretty much done,so I just wanted to say the article looks great and the sections seemed to be better organized and broken down well. good job..-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
The last paragraph in technology starting with: "Multinational corporations reorganized production...", could be addressed. There are several 'sentences' that are not complete. -Artful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.133.189 ( talk) 21:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: By the early 1900s, it was rare to come across a town that was not influenced by foreign markets—whether it be in labor, prices, or any other policy of business.[5] With advances in boat technology and the inventions of the railroad and telephone, communication with other parts of the country and world was readily available. Towns were no longer limited to what they alone could produce and what the next two towns over would trade with them. People everywhere had the accessibility and resources to obtain goods from the other side of the world.
This is true but it all came to an end, first with the outbreak of World War I and then with the Great Depression. International trade and capital flows collapsed, and countries began imposing immigration quotas. The History section is missing the subsequent development where there was no globalization until it began picking up again in the 1970's.
Some graphs here may be helpful. Here is one which illustrates this development pretty nicely [1] (you can't copy the graph itself because it is copyrighted, but if you can get the underlying data you can reconstruct it yourself). Here's another good source btw, [2]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Globalization#History is very poor when it comes to aftermath of World War I, and it of course concerns more than just economic aspects. But it may contain a useful source or two, or some content you may want to adapt. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your suggestions. I'm reworking some of the history section now. I'm also looking into those resources. Thanks again--
Ler321 (
talk) 19:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help I will go back and try to fix those sources. Some of the sentences I struggeled to find sources for becuase I felt they were more or less common knowledge. I came up with the sentences from a colaboration of readings I have done on this topic through my studies at Pitt. How would you suggest I cite things that aren't necessarily lifted from another source?--
Ler321 (
talk) 12:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I also have a question--why is Investopedia not a credible source? It is essentially "wikipedia" for the financial world. You can find many scholaraly articles here and is often times referenced by the Wall Street Journal and Marketwatch.com. I thought this would be a good reference when talking about the capital market.-- Ler321 ( talk) 12:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this is great text. However, there are a couple of points to be cautious about:
Have fun! bobrayner ( talk) 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying everything to try and make the image smaller, but I can't figure it out. Does anyone know how to do this? Rsg20 ( talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think I added the correct caption, although I could be wrong. And I was wondering where to add the citation on the image page, because I do not see cite as an option. I was thinking it should go under the summary section of the image page, but it would also make sense to go under the licensing section. Sorry for the confusion, I'm just new at this. Rsg20 ( talk) 03:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
With regard to this image, please be careful and precise. What the graph shows is NOT "Real Per Capita GDP" (which is a "level" variable - say, 10 trillion per year) but rather the growth rate of "Real Per Capita GDP" (which is a rate variable - say 2% per year). This is a bit like confusing "we traveled 10,000 miles" with "we were driving at 60 miles per hour" (basically the graph is saying "We drove 60 miles" where what it means to say is "we drove 60 miles per hour"). Two different things. Honestly, labeling "Real Per Capita GDP" as "Percent" just doesn't make (mathematical, logical, economic) sense. This is from the Dollar and Kraay paper I suggested but it should be labeled correctly. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering if my section on "debate over exploitation" is too opinionated. I understand I need to add a couple various sources to expand the credibility. And I think the article is nicely balanced as we also have a section on the positive effects of economic globalization. However is there anything in particular I can add or subtract to this article to make it more "encyclopedia-like"? thanks! Kas205 ( talk) 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I merged the positive and solutions sections into one main section about the debate over exploitation but now everything under that section is also merged into the debate section. is there a way to fix this? or is there a way to make little subsections out of the positive and solutions sections? Kas205 ( talk) 17:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks! Kas205 ( talk) 17:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Does there need to be a cite for the word economic globalization in the beginning? I think it's a little bit self-defeating to the overall article and the link is inconsistent with its definition. It's just an observation I made... Tyod ( talk) 14:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
GUYS! I'm sorry! I tried to edit my section again. I was doing more research and wanted to add some stuff and a few resources and it changed the heading on me! I swear I didn't even touch it! Please help me fix this!
-- Ler321 ( talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
never mind i got it under control! However, I added a sentence to the end of my section and can't seem to be able to cite it. I have all of the information and have tried adding in the "cite template" and it won't work. I know how to do it but every time I do, nothing happens. Any ideas??-- Ler321 ( talk) 17:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The Citation showed up on the bottom of the page (its number 5). But an inline reference won't show up next to the sentence. Let me know....-- Ler321 ( talk) 17:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you...I finally figured it out but I still don't know what I was doing wrong-my curser was at the end of the sentence I was trying to cite...I don't know. Thanks-- Ler321 ( talk) 20:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
As the assignment of a GA reviewer to this article seems to be delayed, here are my new review comments:
Once you address those issues, you will find the Good Article review much easier.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"* general: insufficient ref density as mentioned above; many references are missing pages. Clean-up of the references is needed (why is the link in Lawrence inactive, why are there two different references for the same source like Shangquan?)"
I don't know what you mean by this? Tyod ( talk) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems that statement in link citation #11 is quite vague and could be debated and it's not really needed in the description of globalization. Also, globalization was still apparent during the time period between WWI and WWII, it was just segmented by ally powers. Either way, I think the overall History section is quite solid. Tyod ( talk) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll give this article a review either tonight or tomorrow, and gradually look through to see what things may be modified. I'll do the best I can on my end. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
hi Wizardman! Thanks for taking the time to review this article. We've addressed some of the issues brought up by Piotrus. Do you have any further suggestions? Thanks Kas205 ( talk) 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Wizardman! I would definitely love to hear some feedback on what constitute the article in being a good one. Tyod ( talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Here are the issues I noticed with the article:
I'll put this on hold, and once theses issues are fixed I will re-read the article and see if I have any other issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
most of the issues have been addressed if you want to do a second read through thanks Kas205 ( talk) 22:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please get back to us with what else we may want to add to get to GA status. Rsg20 ( talk) 02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's my second run though of comments. Here's the clerical changes:
And here's a few things for discussion I thought up. These are not necessarily actionable, and is more for further improvements, though I would at least like them looked over before I close this:
That's everything I have. Once the above concerns are addressed, then I'll feel comfortable passing the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Closing review as failed, though it is close to a GA should anyone want to pick it up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
For two days I have been trying to log in and make some changes and it won't let me log in, yet gmail lets me log in on their page? What should I do? Bruce b 71.60.41.94 ( talk) 15:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Piotr! My password works fine on gmail. Something hates me on wikipedia. I tried both browsers but they still wont work? I have a paragraph to add and some sources to add. It's not about my effort. I have had one issue after another and I feel bad I can't make the difference to get us a better status. Bruce b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.41.94 ( talk) 02:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok guys, Added some more to the culture section and am looking for more articles and citations. Don't want to stop the work until we make this thing improve status. Let me know if you need anything. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 20:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Piotr, I used one of your sources to add more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.41.94 ( talk) 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I cleaned up some of the issues in my culture section. Just FYI. There were some citation formatting issues and another fomatting issue. Brucesbeckerman ( talk) 17:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Localisation (economics) redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland ( talk) 20:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I really like this article and there is much to commend it. I wonder how you would feel if a few sentences in section 1 (history) were made just a little more inclusive: Current: "By the early 1900s, it was rare to come across a town that was not influenced by foreign markets—whether it be in labor, prices, or any other policy of business.[7] With advances in ship building technology and the inventions of the railroad and telephone, communication with other parts of the country and world was readily available." "The country" sounds like the writer has a specific country in mind (America?) I suggest: "villages that were not..." and "with other parts of one's country and world...." How do others feel about this minor alteration? Gabarker ( talk) 08:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Some copyediting assistance needed to clean up the citations and bibliography for this article. See WP:REFS. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Re [10], @ Bobrayner:? EllenCT ( talk) 00:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I also object to [11]. EllenCT ( talk) 15:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Yetman has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
A very comprehensive and thorough article.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Yetman has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 18:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economic globalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economic globalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Economic globalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Section Technology "Globalization is about interconnecting people around the world beyond the physical barrier of geographical boundaries." The entire section talks about interconnected trade, which is goods, not "people".
Section Policy and Government: "This highly dynamic worldwide system and powerful ramifications." is not a properly constructed sentence.
Section Multinational corporations "leaving some behind." Find a better description. Economically displaced, for instance. "ECLAC states", no definition of ECLAC, should be spelt out upon first use. "Some global brands were found to do that before but they took some methods to support the labors soon after." is not a properly constructed statement.
Section Race to the bottom Not mentioned: Race to the bottom also includes decline in professions/wage rates/job security in developed countries. The same thing occurs, iterated in Section Mistreatment for instance, within developed countries.
Section Economic growth and poverty reduction GDP per capita gain is irrelevant because GDP is not distributed "per capita". The vast majority of India's poor, for instance, is still remarkably poor.
Section Health Risks "The article argued that time is of the essence; in short time is a necessity for an individual's health whether the subject is behavior, vising the doctor’s office, and essential care." is not a properly constructed sentence.
Section Notes 4 - is not a link nor proper citation. Who is "James"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.139.126 ( talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
What are the major causes of the global economy? 197.239.5.62 ( talk) 11:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)