Talk:Production–possibility frontier/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A couple of jobs that need to be done:

a)Citations for the interpretation section. It is good and well explanations the applications of the graph, though there are no sources listed. b) It is mentioned a few times that the 2 good case can be generalised to match the n-good case (i.e. the real world). This is through the conception of the other good as a composite of all other goods vis - a vis x good. This needs to be spelt out somewhere in the article, though I am not sure yet where would be suitable, so as not to disrupt the flow.

4. Neutrality. Pass. No obvious problems.

5. Stability.Pass. No problems here.

6. Images. Pass. Article is well illustrated with diagrams that are freely licensed, and mesh well with the text. Good work here.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update, 15 April 2010.

Apologies for my delay in returning, I had an article I was working on on hold also!

The article is very crisp for writing about economics, which although it was improved recently is still difficult to communicate easily. To the article ghosts through criteria 1 a & b. The article is well cited from authorities on the subject, and to my reading at least, seems to be accurate. Pass no. 2. I would say the article is sufficiently broad for the moment, and that at times it does not go into enough detail. Most of the sections are almost facile, sometimes reading more like "economics for dummies", than a scholarly article, though of course it is pitched at a non-specialist. The only comparable GA or FA article is Price elasticity of demand, which includes a (brief) history section and generally more technical content than here. Perhaps later iterations of the article might allude to the origin of the theory and expand on its application. Though I am unsure about the level of detail an article like this should go into. Despite these concerns I am satisfied this article is of a good standard. Well done to all involved in writing the article, Best--Ktlynch (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]