Talk:Adam Smith/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Protonk comments[edit]

As a general comment, I am not a historian and I have not read any full biographies of the subject. Any egregious errors are probably my own. I've got some books checked out on the subject for a different project, so I'm not completely without clue, but I'm not an expert. Also, the review itself will not follow precisely the format of the GA criteria. I look to those when writing the review but I don't like the format common at GAN (labeled subsections with png pass/neutral/fail and an explanation at the end. I know that this article should be an FA for the econ project, so this will be at an attempt at peer review as well as GA review.

Images[edit]

  • Image:AdamSmith.jpg the copyright tag is probably accurate (likely PD due to age), but the source information could be changed to better identify the original source of the image.
    • Located and updated. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Picture has been changed, making this issue moot. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:François Quesnay.jpg Same minor quibble.
    • Found and updated Author and date of author's death. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Adam Smith.jpg I highly doubt that the source for this image is the english wikipedia AND it was created during smith's lifetime. :)
    • Couldn't find it anywhere. Changed source to "unknown". We can remove or replace it if this is problematic. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to different picture. Moot. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Wealth of Nations.jpg. I like Image:Wealth of Nations title.jpg better, but that is a personal view.
  • Image:Adam smith note.jpg This permission "...Banks' permission ref. FCA/9292B." is pretty cool. Anyway we can verify this, or better, get them to email WP:OTRS?
    • Pinged Morphh about this. If not, shouldn't really matter because it's fair use. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter for GAN, but it would be good to get some readily accessible link to the permission. More of a "peer review" comment. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what I understand, Wikipedia has received permission for reproduction of many UK notes. I believe FCA/9292B is the Bank of England's code for the permission. According to the notes, "Permission was granted by Bank of England for display on Wikipedia for a period of 12 months, ending 29 July 2006. Ref: FCA/9292A. Extended 31 July 2006 for a further 12 months, till 31 July 2007. Permission granted by Bank of England for display on Wikipedia for 12 months from 30 January 2008, until 29 January 2009. Ref: FCA/9292B. Permission also applies for any Series F notes in circulation in this period." I'll try to find out more about it. It would be nice to link to something. I've updated the image page to reflect the best copyright / fairuse template and the above permission. Morphh (talk) 18:49, 01 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like Wangi was the editor that originally obtained the permission to use the notes. So I'm going to ask if there is any additional information we can link too. Morphh (talk) 19:24, 01 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  • the three major references used are pretty commendable (Bucholz, Rae, and Buchan). I might also suggest Adam Smith as Student and Professor by Scott.
  • For publications which are reprints, I might suggest placing the original publication date first, and then the date of the new edition (where you got it) in square brackets. I may be wrong about this (as it may actually apply to literal first and second printings), but I don't think so. I know that people probably won't think Adam Smith published the wealth of nations in 1977, but it might help to be clear. I am aware of this
    • Done, for Smith's two books. Not sure if that's proper formatting, but looks good to me. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adam_Smith#cite_note-54 and Adam_Smith#cite_note-77 may be better in the explanatory notes section, but this is a matter of opinion. WP:REFGROUP may help here.
    • Not sure what these refer to anymore, or if the sections in question are still around. Can you point them out more explicitly? -FrankTobia (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hah! I guess I forgot that the cites would change as you modified the article. all of the other reviews the responders worked top to bottom, so it wasn't an issue. :) I mean the two notes in this revision numbered 56 and 79. These two are explanatory notes rather than references. My question was: do you think that they would be better in the endnotes section instead? Sorry about using an impermanent pointer. :) Protonk (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good call on the end notes, I think you're completely right. I made the changes. And my bad for being difficult and attacking this list in a random order :) -FrankTobia (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adam_Smith#cite_note-0 Is this the NY times or the New York Review of Books?
    • I think that reference has since been removed. Unless I'm thinking of another one. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has (it was the book review). when it is replaced, be sure to note that the source is the New York Review of Books, not the New york times (even though it is on the times website). Protonk (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "father" bit, you can add Rae, 292. (and probably dozens of economic textbooks, as Hoaas & Madigan attest).
  • Adam_Smith#cite_note-2 is an odd choice to add to the litany of "father" cites. It is textually correct but doesn't fit there.
  • Adam_Smith#cite_note-48 "1776: The Revolution in Social Thought" is the issue title. "Adam Smith's View of Man" is the title of Coase's article. As for the quote, it requires a page number, that page is 538. The discussion about Viner's interpretations of Smith's religiosity is ~537-539.
    • Coase reference handled. Not sure what to do with the Viner reference information. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing needs to be done, per se. I just included those page numbers in case you had a non-paginated version of the article and wanted to cite something related to coase talking about Viner. Protonk (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adam_Smith#cite_note-53 Is accurate but a much better reading of this can be handed off to Coase, above, who covers the subject quite well.
  • Adam_Smith#CITEREFSmith_and_Haakonssen2002 leads nowhere (and might due to be renamed if it is what I think it is). For example, I cite The Annotated Alice as Gardner's work.
  • Adam_Smith#cite_ref-58 Might as well name Viner in the text, this is the second time he appears as "an economic historian".
  • Adam_Smith#cite_note-urlInterview.C2.A0.E2.80.94_Milton_Friedman-71 Geocities?
  • Adam_Smith#cite_note-Brown93-75 Needs a page number (as it is an exact quote). That page is 230. And as the review is of a work making the criticism ascribed in the article to Brown, the reviewed work (Capitalism as a Moral System: Adam Smith's Critique of the Free Market Economy, Spencer Pack) is better cited. At the very least, the cite needs to be changed to note that the title of the review is not the title of a reviewed work.
    • I can't find Brown's article to re-cite the facts as necessary. Do you know which of her articles critiques Pack's? -FrankTobia(talk) 05:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a 'review article' so the review covers "Capitalism as a moral system" and another book. Clicking on the doi in the reference leads you to the jstor page (with the title). Protonk (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adam_Smith#cite_note-51 I don't see where this is verified in Rae.
  • "An often-quoted passage from The Wealth of Nations is" Direct quote needs a page number.
  • "Rather than viewing the Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments as presenting incompatible view of human nature, most Smith scholars..." most? Source?

POV[edit]

  • I understand that there have been some discussions about the "father" part of this. The wording obviously needs to stay in (as the clearly mainstream view of Smith is to treat him as the "father" of economics), but I think the confusion about it could be resolved by the use of better sources and sources which more explicitly make the claim. My suggestion is to place only the best source on the subject in the lead (Hoaas & Madigan) and eliminate the two others or move them to the body. Find other sources that make the claim about smith without equivocation and use those. The questions about the "true" parentage of economics belong in the article, just not in the lead. There is some place for discussions of predecessors and of overstated importance.
    • Can you provide a page number for the Hoaas and Madigan text, and I'll add that cite? Two should be good enough. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's cited in the article right now. It is the review of textbook citations cited in the lede. Protonk (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can't believe I missed that one. Removed the other two less-reliable sources. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said in the subsection below, those are still basically good sources (esp. the NY review of books), but they don't say what the lede text says. Before FAC, this article needs a section discussing smith's "parentage" of economics, as it is discussed a bit among historians of economic thought. Those two sources can still be part of that future section. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adam_Smith#cite_note-56 I like P.J. O'Rourke, but is there a reason his opinion is granted (although he does agree with smith, evidently) some time here? Theory may be favored over Wealth by Smith but I think some other thoughts on the comparison might be helpful here (as I know people have weighed in on this).
  • "In Book V of The Wealth of Nations, Smith comments on the low quality of instruction and the meager intellectual activity at English universities, when compared to their Scottish counterparts." This paragraph may benefit from some acknowledgment of Smith's pride in his heritage. The comments he makes there probably reflect upon him as much as they do on the English schools at the time. Schumpeter (1954) History of Economic Analysis, p 181 makes some comments on this subject.
  • Why does Noam Chomsky have the last word on an article about Adam Smith?
    • Good question. I think someone really wanted it in there. Shortened and merged with preceding paragraph. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non style/MOS remarks[edit]

  • "The Wealth of Nations was written for the average educated individual of the 18th century rather than for specialists and mathematicians." True, but should be sourced. also, this is a valuable comparison for a reader today but not so helpful for 1776. books on political economy steeped in mathematics would be pretty thin on the ground for ~100 more years.
  • "It provided one of the best-known intellectual rationales for free trade and capitalism, greatly influencing the writings of later economists." This can and should be expounded upon. The how and the why are two important questions to answer for the reader. This is also (In my opinion) connected with the previous bullet point. Schumpeter (noted above) has some thoughts on this. Basically (in his view) Smith presented an argument that was 'just right'. It wasn't too esoteric (as plenty of continental thinkers were prone to do) but it wasn't purely rhetorical. The immediate audience smith garnered in 1776 for this book (professors and professionals) were important for the transmissions of his ideas.
  • "Economist Jonathan B. Wight reports that, while only two articles on Adam Smith or his works were published in 1970, six hundred articles and thirty books were published in the twenty seven years between 1970 and 1997." This isn't really a helpful comparison for the reader (nor is it too fair). I know what is trying to be said but there might be better ways of saying it.
  • In the Symbol subsection, one paragraph quotes Herbert Stein in making the point that Adam Smith wasn't the defender of doctrinaire libertarianism that we make him out to be. In the very next paragraph, Vivienne Brown notes that the WSJ misconstrues Smith as a 2th century free marketeer. Trouble is, Stein is speaking in the WSJ. That is not to say that both Stein and Brown can't be correct, but the incongruity is a little funny. Even without that odd coincidence, the two paragraphs are inartfully juxtaposed. They should be re-written mindful of the fact that they represent two reflections of the same view: that Smith has been coopted as a figure in service of laissez-faire capitalism. The two paragraphs sort of do that now, but it isn't accurate to say that Brown and Stein's views are "similar".
  • "Scottish journalist John Rae recorded that Smith was..." It is accurate to say that Rae was a journalist but since we mention him twice we should do so in the context in which the information is presented: Rae's lovingly detailed biography of smith.
    • Added that Rae is Smith's biographer to first instance. Could read a little clunky, let me know. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, Smith lectured that division of labor is the cause of increase in national wealth, rather than the nation's quantity of gold or silver." I know what you are trying to say here, but more context is needed. The first sentence in the paragraphs indicates that we will present a progression and we show only a point in time here.
  • "...while teaching him subjects including proper Polish." Why include only this?
  • "Smith may have gone to England with the intention of a career in the Church of England: this is controversial and depends on the status of the Snell Exhibition." This needs some context, a wikilink, or both. Update. I realize now that it was wikilinked above. Some context would still be helpful. Protonk (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Religious views subsection should be reorganized. Smith's letter about his friend's passing and the subsequent controversy should be in the middle, with the material about his friendship with Hume. The discussion of Smith's beliefs and Coase's refutation of the traditional views should be at the end, as it caps the section nicely.
  • "Smith believed that a division of labour..." Division of labour
    • Already wikilinked in the same section, a paragraph or two above. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bicentennial anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations was celebrated in 1976. Economist Jonathan B. Wight reports that..." the following two paragraphs are unclear. I can get that what we mean to say is that the impression that the profession held of Smith was waning until the bicentennial of the wealth of nations, at which point his popularity surged. If that is the case, we should remand that judgment to a source and be more clear in the two paragraphs. Also, if it is true, at what point did his star fade within economics? also, the Wight claim needs a source, unless I've missed it.
  • Political economy. This is rightly mentioned in the lead but sort of dropped throughout the article (although the text string shows up a few times). If Smith was alive today, we would probably classify him as a political economist (maybe), we would certainly classify Theory and much of Wealth as a work of political economy. However, much of Wealth provides the forebear for what the Economics discipline would become. The distinction between political economy and economics both today and in smith's time should be made, perhaps at the beginning of the "Published Works" section?
  • "Smith followed the views of his mentor, Francis Hutcheson of the University of Glasgow, who divided moral philosophy into four parts: ethics and virtue; private rights and natural liberty..." These few sentences seem out of place.
    • Agreed. I've removed them until someone can demonstrate what they add, and a better way to state it. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style/MOS[edit]

  • "Some of these dealt with rhetoric and belles-lettres, but he later took up the subject of "the progress of opulence", and it was then in his mid-to-late 20s that he first expounded the economic philosophy of "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty"." this is an awkward sentence.
  • "Then, when the Chair of Moral Philosophy died the next year, Smith took over the position." No "Then"
  • Lead doesn't really include the Legacy section as written.
    • Attempted synchronization by adapting a sentence from the lead into the Legacy section. Not sure if it works. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinks. Although this is a matter of editor discretion, I think this article overlinks slightly. For an example, The Wealth of Nations is wikilinked in the text 5 times and in a hatnote once. I don't think it is severe, but it is noticeable for a few terms.
  • MOSDATE says that wikilinking dates should be limited. Does this mean dates as the article links them or just something like 13 March 2007? Nevermind, that redirects to March 13. My comment remains.
    • Addressed: only dates wikified are his baptism and death. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

Overall this is a good article. The subject matter is difficult and the literature is vast. You don't have the advantage of being limited in scope by reference materials. You could literally start writing about Smith and never stop. If this were a FAC, I would look for a lot more detail on the writings (As the individual pages for the books aren't too helpful), but that isn't necessary here. There are some image and sourcing issues to clear up with the article, as well as the minor style and non-style issues with the content, but overall the article is complete, informative and free from major errors. The biggest general problem is the hardest to solve--the criticism section. Because smith wrote so long ago and is lionized by so many, people tend to use him and his words as proxies for their causes. As such, finding and reporting on criticism is hard even with editors devoted to producing neutral content.

I'm putting this article on hold pending a resolution of most of these issues above. I realize this is a long list and I also realize that I may be wrong about portions of it. But piece by piece it can probably be done in the ballpark of 7 days. Thanks for the opportunity to review an article like this. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice review Protonk, you clearly put some time an effort into giving us something to work with and improve. It is much appreciated. Morphh (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the detailed review. This is extremely helpful. Remember (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky ending[edit]

Instead of focusing on Chomsky ... this could be a better ending, and also get across the information mostly that is there now.

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith addressed many issues that are currently also the subject of debate and dispute. Smith repeatedly attacks groups of politically aligned individuals who attempt to use their collective influence to manipulate a government into doing their bidding. In Smiths day, these were referred to as factions, but are now more commonly called special interests, a term which can comprise international bankers, corporate conglomerations, outright oligopolies, monopolies, trade unions and other groups. ref...citation... http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter5.htm#f1

This version is not focused on Chomsky ... but on Smith and leads directly to quotes in Smiths W.O.N.

Also as suggested by Protonk removing the link to Austrian economic school unrelated, to issue of father ... and the book review that tosses off father info. should be done... leaving the original citation... which may also be iffy. Also as suggested by Protonk... The questions about the "true" parentage of economics belong in the article, just not in the lead. There is some place for discussions of predecessors and of overstated importance. In other words... instead of proclaiming the father of economics as Smith .. which may or may not be true... it would be better to take that sentence and phrase and attempt to say he may be.. and put it else where in the article... not in the lead. skip sievert (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. I suggested moving the book review and Austrian school pages from the lede to a small paragraph about the "father" business because the issue merits some consideration. The textbook citation review (and probably a half dozen other sources which are effectively above reproach) make it clear that smith is widely regarded as the father of economics. That belongs in the lede. What we need to address is the distinction between political economy (and moral philosophy) in the 18th century and political economy now. As well as the distinction between political economy then and economics (when it became a full fledged discipline). On top of that, some antecedents of smith might merit mention insofar as they are credited for spurring economic thought (verus smith). This section should be (WP:UNDUE) relatively short and should focus on serious historical concerns. I also don't consider it absolutely vital that this issue be settled prior to passing the article. It should be settled before the article goes to FAC, but that is another animal altogether. Protonk (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review comments[edit]

Moved from talk page

I've addressed most of what I can of Protonk's GA review. I haven't made much progress on the "Non style/MOS" section, in large part because I couldn't come up with good solutions to the problems. I agree there's still lots of room for improvement, but I hope this article is GA-worthy as it stands. I want to encourage other editors to attack any and all remaining points: more eyeballs can only help at this point. Thanks guys. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the suggestions are there for peer review, but I'll try and boil down what I feel remain critical issues to pass for GA:
  • The article needs to be clear (in the legacy section) as to what changes to Smith's images occurred following the 200th anniversary of the publishing of the wealth of nations. Preferably some biographical source should be used rather than the odd reference to cited works that exists now.
    • I've rewritten it, but that paragraph seriously needs more sources. I'm not in a position to track down alternate (book) sourcing, so the web is the best I can do. I'll work on this next, unless someone can add facts and citations from reliable book sources, and then I'm good to keep copyediting. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Symbol" section needs to be reworded to more clearly articulate the two fronts in the debate about Smith's influence. One front sees him as a symbol for the excesses of neoliberal economics (insofar as smith is made to be the 'father' of laissez-faire capitalism and such"). Another front (the conservative free-market capitalists) attacks him as insufficiently committed to the belief that market competition will solve social ills and generate growth. Both of these views need to be addressed and given due consideration. both views should be mentioned, explained and compared to the facts about smith. that comparison and 'judgment' (in quotes because we aren't really passing judgment) shoudl end the article.
  • The text should be given a close reading by someone other than me or frank to see if my other (more minor) complaints are really clarity or exposition problems in the article.
  • After someone reports that they have done that and the two major points regarding his legacy are fixed I'll be happy to pass this article. Thanks so much for the work on this one. After this it isn't too far to FAC! Protonk (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm not going to list this article. It isn't stable and the comments above haven't really been addressed. Someone other than me, skip or frank needs to look over the POV for the Influence section. The basic view of smith should be solidified before this article comes back to GAN. Apart from that the article has few problems. I'm sorry, but on the plus side, this means I have much less reservation about being involved in the article. Protonk (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. I need some space and perspective before I get back into this article too heavily. This is for the best, and the article has come a long way. Thanks Protonk for your reviewing and improvements. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Smith/GA1&oldid=238044734"