This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Economics/Assessment page. |
|
![]() | Economics NA‑class | ||||||
|
I'm upgrading the importance of Agricultural economics from Mid to High. It's an area which is important to both those within the field and the general public. Many universities have specific, separate Agricultural Economics programs. It may be particularly important in places where many people's livelihood is tied closely to agriculture. Plus, it's food! CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I rated Marshallian demand function high and FrankTobia rated it mid. I then rated it back to high because I imagine he only didn't recognize what is often called "the demand function." in college economics classes; as in supply and ______. The concept seems critical to economics to me, but maybe I am missing something obvious about why he rated it mid. Pdbailey ( talk) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Some Nobel winners are more influential than others, but I think it's a good guideline that any biography of a Nobel winner is High importance, as is any article which is clearly about the contribution for which a Nobel was won. Thoughts? CRETOG8( t/ c) 04:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
How's that for a useless section title? Anyway, the project banner we put in talk pages has links for assessment and importance scales, but both go the Wikipedia 1.0 guidelines, rather than the project guidelines. I'm not sure which is appropriate (or how to change it). CRETOG8( t/ c) 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Done --
Patrick (
talk) 05:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:Hicksian demand function, Morphh, FrankTobia and I started speculating on limiting the number of articles in each class as a way of disciplining us to make the hard decisions. Frank suggested as a starting point 30 Top and 150 High class articles.
I kinda like this idea in adding discipline. Here's things I don't like about it:
So, I kinda like the idea, but if we follow it, I'm absolutely not willing to take it very seriously, because my wikistress can't handle it. CRETOG8( t/ c) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Coming back to this--I'm not ready to go through a massive re-assessment myself, but it's come to mind. As of right now, there are: 20 Top; 256 High; 436 Med; 528 Low; and 208 unassessed articles. This looks like bad proportions, and I'm sure I'm largely to blame. Sorry.
Returning to FrankTobia's suggestion, but tweaking it a little, how about aiming for: 30 Top; 100 High; 333 Med; and the remainder (985) Low? That would require major trimming of High and Med class articles. Without actually trying that trimming, I'm not sure how reasonable these guidelines are, but it might help prioritize. CRETOG8( t/ c) 22:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikiediting, so maybe I just don't know the norms well enough, but I changed the importance of Hotelling's law from Low to High importance. At the very least, I think it should be changed to mid level. Hotelling's Law is standard fair for most introductory micro-economics classes. It is a simple intuition with a powerful predictive force. It is frequently cited as the explanation for why gas stations bunch together at certain intersections. Furthermore, it is the basis for a lot of intuitions in the disciplines of public choice and political science including the Median voter theory. It is the basis for many more complicated spacial positioning models. -- PaperTyler ( talk) 05:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should have some sort of guidelines and some specific examples written down for what makes an article topic 'Top' or 'High' importance, just so that we have some basis for discuss when disagreements occur. Since the consensus above appears to be Nobel winner's biographies and the topics they were working on don't get an automatic 'High', we can't use that as a basis for comparison.
Here's a suggestion for some guidelines (comments & criticisms welcome of course):
LK ( talk) 16:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think topics that deal with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) should not be assigned ‘Low’ importance. MMT credibly challenges the established macroeconomic theory taught at all levels of study. It deserves ‘High’ importance IMO. Otherwise the impression conveyed is that it is not worth mentioning as a serious subject. Lobdillj ( talk) 13:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The page on Bitcoin is rated currently Low-importance on Econ's importance scale. I believe it should be moved up to mid, if at least because of its current popularity and novelty of concept (a currency without a central issuer or bank). What does anybody else think? E123 ( talk) 03:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Bestselling books, like The World is Flat or Freakonomics, in my opinion, should be categorised as Mid importance. The books are highly influential over the general population and directly shape the general consensus on economics. Comments? Ifly6 ( talk) 04:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Score: C Class The article has been greatly improved by AWilcox2 and S4435978 since the last review. A few aspects of content and style still need to be addressed. Some expert knowledge may be required and considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content.
1) Defined Structure: The article has a clear structure with an appropriate lead section. The most important areas and sections of the topic are identified and explained. However, titles and sections could be organized in a friendlier way. Section 2, “Theory, Testing and Possible uses” can be separated in two different sections. One section exclusively about the Theory and other section the talks about the Testing &Possible Uses. In this way, the reader would be able to clearly distinguish each sub dimension of the topic while also encouraging the editor for further research.
2)Coverage: Overall the article reasonably covers the topic. There are no relevant sections missing. However, there are some obvious omissions specially under the following sections: “History of Personnel Economic”, “Gift Exchange Theory “and “Principal-Agent Problem. Further research and explanations are required. Additionally, some sections are longer than others besides being equally important.
3)Well Written: The article is reasonable well-written. Besides a couple of missing punctuation and the use of capital letter in the bullet points of section 2, the prose contains no grammatical errors. The introduction could be improved (too much “and” in the first part) and doesn’t resume correctly the most important points of the topic.
4) Neutrality: The article represents its content in an appropriately and understandable way. It is written using a neutral perspective without trying to persuade readers with opinions or personal experiences. It is written with as brad an audience in mind as possible. Nevertheless, illustrations should also be included as they could be relevant and useful to the content. Using pictures, diagrams or charts could potentially facilitate the understanding of the readers.
5) References: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has some reliable sources but more research is required. No controversial material challenged what is cited. No original research. Some sources in “Notes” were not reliable such as blog posts and press materials.
Alonso Zagal — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Alonso.zagal (
talk •
contribs) 10:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I have upgraded the article on Decision Theory to high importance, because most of the major areas of Decision Theory, like choice under uncertainty and intertemporal choice etc. are taught at undergraduate courses in Economics, and in the manner in which they are usually dealt with in Decision Theory. Decision Theory is also at the core of microeconomic theory. (I interpreted the "be bold" instruction as "first edit and then comment on the assessment page," I hope what I did is fine!) IKHazarika ( talk) 17:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Please may I ask that Financial_economics be re-assessed. It's been substantially improved over the last few years, and the C-Class ranking doesn't seem to reflect the current article. Thanks. Fintor ( talk) 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Economics/Assessment page. |
|
![]() | Economics NA‑class | ||||||
|
I'm upgrading the importance of Agricultural economics from Mid to High. It's an area which is important to both those within the field and the general public. Many universities have specific, separate Agricultural Economics programs. It may be particularly important in places where many people's livelihood is tied closely to agriculture. Plus, it's food! CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I rated Marshallian demand function high and FrankTobia rated it mid. I then rated it back to high because I imagine he only didn't recognize what is often called "the demand function." in college economics classes; as in supply and ______. The concept seems critical to economics to me, but maybe I am missing something obvious about why he rated it mid. Pdbailey ( talk) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Some Nobel winners are more influential than others, but I think it's a good guideline that any biography of a Nobel winner is High importance, as is any article which is clearly about the contribution for which a Nobel was won. Thoughts? CRETOG8( t/ c) 04:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
How's that for a useless section title? Anyway, the project banner we put in talk pages has links for assessment and importance scales, but both go the Wikipedia 1.0 guidelines, rather than the project guidelines. I'm not sure which is appropriate (or how to change it). CRETOG8( t/ c) 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Done --
Patrick (
talk) 05:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:Hicksian demand function, Morphh, FrankTobia and I started speculating on limiting the number of articles in each class as a way of disciplining us to make the hard decisions. Frank suggested as a starting point 30 Top and 150 High class articles.
I kinda like this idea in adding discipline. Here's things I don't like about it:
So, I kinda like the idea, but if we follow it, I'm absolutely not willing to take it very seriously, because my wikistress can't handle it. CRETOG8( t/ c) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Coming back to this--I'm not ready to go through a massive re-assessment myself, but it's come to mind. As of right now, there are: 20 Top; 256 High; 436 Med; 528 Low; and 208 unassessed articles. This looks like bad proportions, and I'm sure I'm largely to blame. Sorry.
Returning to FrankTobia's suggestion, but tweaking it a little, how about aiming for: 30 Top; 100 High; 333 Med; and the remainder (985) Low? That would require major trimming of High and Med class articles. Without actually trying that trimming, I'm not sure how reasonable these guidelines are, but it might help prioritize. CRETOG8( t/ c) 22:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikiediting, so maybe I just don't know the norms well enough, but I changed the importance of Hotelling's law from Low to High importance. At the very least, I think it should be changed to mid level. Hotelling's Law is standard fair for most introductory micro-economics classes. It is a simple intuition with a powerful predictive force. It is frequently cited as the explanation for why gas stations bunch together at certain intersections. Furthermore, it is the basis for a lot of intuitions in the disciplines of public choice and political science including the Median voter theory. It is the basis for many more complicated spacial positioning models. -- PaperTyler ( talk) 05:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should have some sort of guidelines and some specific examples written down for what makes an article topic 'Top' or 'High' importance, just so that we have some basis for discuss when disagreements occur. Since the consensus above appears to be Nobel winner's biographies and the topics they were working on don't get an automatic 'High', we can't use that as a basis for comparison.
Here's a suggestion for some guidelines (comments & criticisms welcome of course):
LK ( talk) 16:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think topics that deal with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) should not be assigned ‘Low’ importance. MMT credibly challenges the established macroeconomic theory taught at all levels of study. It deserves ‘High’ importance IMO. Otherwise the impression conveyed is that it is not worth mentioning as a serious subject. Lobdillj ( talk) 13:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The page on Bitcoin is rated currently Low-importance on Econ's importance scale. I believe it should be moved up to mid, if at least because of its current popularity and novelty of concept (a currency without a central issuer or bank). What does anybody else think? E123 ( talk) 03:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Bestselling books, like The World is Flat or Freakonomics, in my opinion, should be categorised as Mid importance. The books are highly influential over the general population and directly shape the general consensus on economics. Comments? Ifly6 ( talk) 04:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Score: C Class The article has been greatly improved by AWilcox2 and S4435978 since the last review. A few aspects of content and style still need to be addressed. Some expert knowledge may be required and considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content.
1) Defined Structure: The article has a clear structure with an appropriate lead section. The most important areas and sections of the topic are identified and explained. However, titles and sections could be organized in a friendlier way. Section 2, “Theory, Testing and Possible uses” can be separated in two different sections. One section exclusively about the Theory and other section the talks about the Testing &Possible Uses. In this way, the reader would be able to clearly distinguish each sub dimension of the topic while also encouraging the editor for further research.
2)Coverage: Overall the article reasonably covers the topic. There are no relevant sections missing. However, there are some obvious omissions specially under the following sections: “History of Personnel Economic”, “Gift Exchange Theory “and “Principal-Agent Problem. Further research and explanations are required. Additionally, some sections are longer than others besides being equally important.
3)Well Written: The article is reasonable well-written. Besides a couple of missing punctuation and the use of capital letter in the bullet points of section 2, the prose contains no grammatical errors. The introduction could be improved (too much “and” in the first part) and doesn’t resume correctly the most important points of the topic.
4) Neutrality: The article represents its content in an appropriately and understandable way. It is written using a neutral perspective without trying to persuade readers with opinions or personal experiences. It is written with as brad an audience in mind as possible. Nevertheless, illustrations should also be included as they could be relevant and useful to the content. Using pictures, diagrams or charts could potentially facilitate the understanding of the readers.
5) References: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has some reliable sources but more research is required. No controversial material challenged what is cited. No original research. Some sources in “Notes” were not reliable such as blog posts and press materials.
Alonso Zagal — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Alonso.zagal (
talk •
contribs) 10:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I have upgraded the article on Decision Theory to high importance, because most of the major areas of Decision Theory, like choice under uncertainty and intertemporal choice etc. are taught at undergraduate courses in Economics, and in the manner in which they are usually dealt with in Decision Theory. Decision Theory is also at the core of microeconomic theory. (I interpreted the "be bold" instruction as "first edit and then comment on the assessment page," I hope what I did is fine!) IKHazarika ( talk) 17:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Please may I ask that Financial_economics be re-assessed. It's been substantially improved over the last few years, and the C-Class ranking doesn't seem to reflect the current article. Thanks. Fintor ( talk) 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)