Wikipedia:Peer review/Mathematical economics/archive1

Mathematical economics[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for a close copyedit reading as well as a general test for comprehensiveness, accuracy and readability. I will eventually take it to FA and I'll be around to fix comments added (so a c/e review doesn't mean c/e it yourself).

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Taxman (talk · contribs)

Well lets see, I'll try to come back for more, but here's a start. The article isn't balanced yet. The history section is really long and the applications section is very short. The applications section is probably the most important in the article and therefore should justify the most space. The history, while interesting, is not the single most important facet, so shouldn't take up so much space. Summarize it and move some of the detail to a subarticle. You could also stand to mention the dichotomy in economics journal articles between those that are highly mathematical and those that are not. Of course all economics makes at least some use of mathematics, there is a fairly clear break in the amount and focus between different journals and articles. Not that you even need to present it that way, just to make it clear the difference in mathematical level of different economics research. - Taxman ^Talk 01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]