Talk:Ronald MacDonald (economist)

Untitled

I do not have time to go through all his publications as I have a deadline soon, please could somebody continue it!

The education sections repeats information either in the box or in the timeline. It is just a long winded way of giving the same information. Perhaps it should be removed? or re-written to make it more comprehensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalwrath (talk • contribs) 14:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added all Ronnie's currently supervised students and referenced a few to the relevant webpages, can admins please not delete this information as I will reference the remaining students listed when I have time; should you need confirmation, you can manually search through this webpage yourself

http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/economics/phdprogrammes/current%20students/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalwrath (talk • contribs) 13:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Never had initial GA assessment -- close GAR

GA Reassessment This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ronald MacDonald (economist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. I believe this article needs reassesment because it does not meet several of the good article criteria. Criterion 1: Well-written The article's prose could comply a little tighter with the manual of style. In the Education and Academic Career section, the first paragraph starts every phrase with 'He...'. This is repetitive and could be misleading since the same phrase sometimes mentions Adam Smith and MacDonald. The title of the 'Discussion of Qualifications and Appointments' is inaccurate since there is no discussion of it; instead there is a brief exposition with no discussion. The layout is not sequencial: the section 'Discussion of Qualification and Appointments' is on the same level as 'Timeline of Qualifications and Appointments'; a more appropiate layout would be: Qualifications and Appointments in one level and two subsections: Discussion (if it were the case, see above), and Timeline. The section Journals is empty. The 'words to watch guideline' holds that articles should not use unsupported attributions: there are at least three: As a prominent figure in economic academia; ...has presented his famous five day courses; and Since 1996 he has been involved in succesful Research Grant applications totalling over.... The list of positions held by MacDonald is not appropiate by the list incorporation standards of Wikipedia: most economists have this information sorted out in regular prose (not embedded as a list). Also, the list of PhD Students currently supervised is not relevant to the article. His main students can and should be cited in a single sentence within the article, but not all of them. The list of books published does not comply with the manual of style guideline of including relevant information such as the place of publication, the publisher, or the ISBN. Criterion 2: Verifiable with no original research Citations for the World Wide Web pages do not include the name of the author, or the date of retrieval, as recommended by the manual of style. Reference number two is a broken link, as of today. The phrase ...has been widely applied by central banks and financial researchers... has a citation needed tag. Criterion 3: Broad in its coverage It does not address MacDonald's personal life, and not enough detail is presented on the relevance of his work for economics (other than the fairly impressive list of credentials). Criterion 4: Neutral The article reads a bit like self-publicity for MacDonald because there is too much weight given to his credentials and the merit of his work is backed up too much by its quantity and not by its impact on the economics discipline.--Forich (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC) No initial GA assessment ever done No initial GA assessment was ever done. It simply got tagged GA here [1]. I don't think a GAR is appropriate or needed, and I wouldn't want the article to be listed as a former GA. I've posted an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles asking what to do. Will post any replies that I get here. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Collapsing as article never had a GA assessment to begin with. – S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Is a reassessment necessary? I see here that GA was posted by a relatively new editor who worked this and few other articles. [2] I will post this comment on the GAR page. – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No GA assessment ever done. Reassess as start. (WikiProjects Good Article help helped) – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)