Talk:Perspectives on capitalism by school of thought/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LK (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article. However, I have three major concerns.

Scope of article

My first major concern is about the concept and scope of this article. The article does not make clear exactly what forms a 'perspective on capitalism'. It also does not provide sources discussing perspectives on capitalism, and books/scholarly articles discussing various perspectives on capitalism. This gives the impression that the article could arguably be considered largely synthesis. For example, I can understand that Marxists have a perspective on capitalism (i.e. it will be superceded), but how exactly is Keynesian economics or supply side economics a 'perspective on capitalism'? Has anyone described them as such? My main concern is that this article reads a lot like an excerpt from the History of Economic Thought article or the Schools of economic thought article, with no clear criteria of what is being excerpted or why. Providing sources that discuss different perspectives on capitalism (and amending the article to follow such sources), would go a long way towards alleviating this concern.

Inclusion criteria

My second major concern is related to the first, in that since no sources are provided discussing perspectives on capitalism, there is no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria. For example, should 'Austrian economics', a heterodox and fringe school of thought be included? Should the German historical school, be included? Why not the Stockholm school? Why are Georgist and Schumpeterian perpectives (hugely popular in their day) excluded? What about the increasingly popular post Keynesians? Are they also a perspective on capitalism? With a few books or scholarly articles discussing this issue, we can use the criteria of notability, and ask, "are these schools of thought notable enough to be significantly discussed in scholarly works on this topic?"

Organization

My third major concern is about the general organization of the article. The most obvious problem is the lead. The lead should not be overly long, and should summarize all major topics in the body with proportionate weight, and should not discuss any ideas that are not significantly discussed in the body of the article itself. I'm afraid the lead fails all three of these criteria. Some parts of the lead would likely be better used as part of a first section for the body of the article. Given that the topic of the article itself is unclear, the first section of the article should start with a discussion and history of the scope and topic of the article. In this case, it would be appropriate to have a brief discussion of the literature, and how perspectives on capitalism have evolved over time.

I'ld like to see these issues addressed before making a decision about the GA nomination.

Reviewer: LK (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been more than a week with no response, so I'm going to close this submission for GA status. LK (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)