This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page used to be the article for economic methodology. The problem was that it had almost no content but an outstanding bibliography. In a response to a request for cleanup I decided to change it into a bibliography. It needs reformating as a bibliogrphy. Without adding a single source it can be made into a real good one. Yaniv256 ( talk) 10:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ways of improving Economic methodology might include expanding the topics in the text that are footnoted using the footnoted or related sources to develop into a paragraph or 2 each. General references might also be used as a basis of organizing paragraphs or sections, such as, from the footnote 1 references:
In the meanwhile, the footnoted sources might be consulted, starting with the links. No one "owns" this article of course. And anyone who studies good sources may be in a good position to improve this article. Best wishes. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page used to be the article for economic methodology. The problem was that it had almost no content but an outstanding bibliography. In a response to a request for cleanup I decided to change it into a bibliography. It needs reformating as a bibliogrphy. Without adding a single source it can be made into a real good one. Yaniv256 ( talk) 10:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ways of improving Economic methodology might include expanding the topics in the text that are footnoted using the footnoted or related sources to develop into a paragraph or 2 each. General references might also be used as a basis of organizing paragraphs or sections, such as, from the footnote 1 references:
In the meanwhile, the footnoted sources might be consulted, starting with the links. No one "owns" this article of course. And anyone who studies good sources may be in a good position to improve this article. Best wishes. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)