Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Permanent income hypothesis

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Permanent income hypothesis

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by BasedMises (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - No
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough and well sourced. No issues with neutrality or copyvio. The hook's interest seems fine to me but I rephrased it as ALT1 to address Daniel Case's concerns. One problem: the source cited in the hook does not seem to mention the "permanent income hypothesis" specifically. It definitely alludes to it, but I'd think a more precise source would be better. If that got added I would be ready to approve. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this work? BasedMisesMont Pelerin 01:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
That could work. It's a primary source but the Nobel Foundation is reliable for information about the Nobel Prize. It could be used in combination with the original source you provided. There is one issue @BasedMises: the fact in the article it also has to be cited. The article cites Worek's offline book, so I'm assuming the book says that. If it doesn't we have to fix that. Otherwise we can (and probably should) use the citation from the article in the hook to keep it consistent. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging @BasedMises: it's been over a week and I wasn't sure if you saw the last comment. This nom needs just a little more work on the sources to get it up to spec. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. I kind of forgot about this. I think I'll add the Nobel source to the article.BasedMisesMont Pelerin 05:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about it! I figured you probably just forgot or were busy. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Dull hook. Does anyone who wins the economics Nobel win for just one thing they did? No. And really, the hook should be something about the subject of the article, not the person who created that subject. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Yeah. It's been 2 weeks and the sourcing on the article/hook hasn't been fixed. I think BasedMises was busy but it's not ready for approval unless that gets fixed. I'll reject this one unless that gets sorted out in the next few days. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that it's been 10 days since the nominator's last edit, and how the article hasn't even been edited in over a month, unless another editor decides to adopt this or the nom returns, it appears that there is no path forward to the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Permanent_income_hypothesis&oldid=1040527921"