Talk:Productivity/Archives/2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Productivity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dr. Diewert's comment on this article
Dr. Diewert has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
This article looks OK to me. I have attached my lecture notes in my Applied Economics Course (Economics 594) at the University of British Columbia and chapter 7 on productivity would bear on the Wikipedia Productivity entry. However, getting these chapters into a form that would be suitable for Wikipedia would be a big job.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Diewert has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
- Reference : Diewert, E. (2014). Decompositions of Productivity Growth into Sectoral Effects: Some Puzzles Explained. Economics working papers erwin_diewert-2014-48, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 03 Nov 2014.
Terrible article
Large parts of this need rewriting from scratch, imo. Sections just read like a mix of opinion and gibberish in a second language. Please could someone knowledgeable about the subject put some time into it. Exactly my sentiments, especially the section headed "Accounting procedure".IvanTheGrumpy (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.180.242 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Considering the dearth of citations in such a dense article, one is left to assume that a large percentage is original research. This article appears to have been written almost entirely by one person. It would be extremely helpful if that person would provide citations throughout (i.e. for every major assertion made, or at least one per paragraph.)JFdove (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed this is a terrible article in both style and content. See also the discussions above.
- I have made a minor improvement by simply removing the generic lucubrations in the lead. They had been there for years. I encourage other editors to actually edit the article rather than simply observe that it is of low quality on this Talk page. Many useful and productive edits can be made by people without specific knowledge of economics, in particular, simply removing incoherent or content-free passages. One trap to avoid, though, is taking a badly-written passage and improving the English without knowing whether it is correct or not. Another kind of improvement that non-specialist editors can make is to review the general literature on the topic (e.g. your college Economics textbook, encyclopedia articles, etc.) and summarize it. --Macrakis (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)