Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mathematical economics/1

Mathematical economics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. While some prose is used to explain the mathematical formulas, and thus citations might not be required, other uncited prose is not used for that purpose, and thus needs to be cited. Some sections have an overreliance on quotes, which cause copyright concerns and are not summaries of the information. This includes the "Adequacy of mathematics for qualitative and complicated economics" and "Mathematical economics as a form of pure mathematics" sections. Ref 128 and 129 seem to be blogs. Are these reliable sources, or should they be replaced? Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree the article is not uniformly up to GA standards. I tagged a section that seems to be entirely original research. In other places, the problems are not so egregious to my eye, and I leave it to others to figure out. Tito Omburo (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update. @Chiswick Chap: has entirely removed this section, in addition to several others, whose removal I agree with in broad terms. While the wholesale removal of sections with sources seems to me a bit heavy handed, and worthy of careful review, I cannot at this time raise any specific objections to any removal, but encourage anyone with an interest to discuss on the talk page of the article. I therefore defer to their keep !vote. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've removed the major chunks of uncited material as original research (and an inapposite and uncited list); the removed text includes refs [128] and [129] so two birds killed with one stone there. I've also paraphrased the lengthy quotations in 'Criticisms', so that issue is sorted. The rest of the article seems pretty tidy and well-structured. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 85 is giving a cite error. Anyone know what that is supposed to be? Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bot has fixed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: uncited text seems to be solved. Unreliable sources removed. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.