GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to review this article for GA. I'm not an economist so I'm looking forward to learning something about eurozone economics and the politics of eurozone membership (potential bias: I'm British and was pro-euro, but given the Greek debt crisis, I think we may have dodged a bullet in not joining!).
Anyway, enough chatter, here are some issues. If these can be fixed, I'll pass, until then, on hold.
From the ' Investment' section:
This sentence is unfinished or otherwise unreadable.
It would be good if there was consistency of capitalisation: "eurozone" and "Eurozone". Pick one, preferably based on some linguistic evidence, and stick with it.
It'd also be useful if a rough explanation of how adherence or not to optimum currency area theory by U.S. economists shaped the view of the euro. It sort of makes sense to me, a non-economist. The rest of that paragraph goes on to say that economists were skeptical of the unification: are they skeptical of the unification process (as in, they are now no longer skeptical, they were just skeptical of the process of transitioning from the national currencies to the Euro) or of the whole idea of unified pan-national currencies.
From the one-line
Tourism section:
What's "tourism flow"? Is that the amount of tourist travel or the amount of tourist spending or tourism-related trade? Not sure if it's an economic term of art or not.
One thing I think is a glaring omission from the article is the politics of Euro membership. There was obviously huge political fervour in countries like the UK in deciding whether or not to join. It may be appropriate to describe, say, the political wrangling that went on in different countries to decide whether or not to join the euro, and how that played out in terms of partisan or political affiliation. Generally, anti-Euro sentiment in Britain has been the preserve of the Conservatives although it was on Labour's watch that the decision to not join was taken, and if I recall correctly, Gordon Brown said that it was purely for fiscal reasons. But people seem to have plenty of political reasons (that, say, the pound is a core part of British identity) to oppose or support eurozone membership as well as the fiscal reasons. (The inclusion of this may be more appropriate for History of the Euro rather than Euro.) — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Passed. I've passed this for GA. Well done! —
Tom Morris (
talk)
15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tom! – Plarem (
User |
talk |
contribs)
15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to review this article for GA. I'm not an economist so I'm looking forward to learning something about eurozone economics and the politics of eurozone membership (potential bias: I'm British and was pro-euro, but given the Greek debt crisis, I think we may have dodged a bullet in not joining!).
Anyway, enough chatter, here are some issues. If these can be fixed, I'll pass, until then, on hold.
From the ' Investment' section:
This sentence is unfinished or otherwise unreadable.
It would be good if there was consistency of capitalisation: "eurozone" and "Eurozone". Pick one, preferably based on some linguistic evidence, and stick with it.
It'd also be useful if a rough explanation of how adherence or not to optimum currency area theory by U.S. economists shaped the view of the euro. It sort of makes sense to me, a non-economist. The rest of that paragraph goes on to say that economists were skeptical of the unification: are they skeptical of the unification process (as in, they are now no longer skeptical, they were just skeptical of the process of transitioning from the national currencies to the Euro) or of the whole idea of unified pan-national currencies.
From the one-line
Tourism section:
What's "tourism flow"? Is that the amount of tourist travel or the amount of tourist spending or tourism-related trade? Not sure if it's an economic term of art or not.
One thing I think is a glaring omission from the article is the politics of Euro membership. There was obviously huge political fervour in countries like the UK in deciding whether or not to join. It may be appropriate to describe, say, the political wrangling that went on in different countries to decide whether or not to join the euro, and how that played out in terms of partisan or political affiliation. Generally, anti-Euro sentiment in Britain has been the preserve of the Conservatives although it was on Labour's watch that the decision to not join was taken, and if I recall correctly, Gordon Brown said that it was purely for fiscal reasons. But people seem to have plenty of political reasons (that, say, the pound is a core part of British identity) to oppose or support eurozone membership as well as the fiscal reasons. (The inclusion of this may be more appropriate for History of the Euro rather than Euro.) — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Passed. I've passed this for GA. Well done! —
Tom Morris (
talk)
15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tom! – Plarem (
User |
talk |
contribs)
15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)