Wikipedia:Peer review/Capitalism and Freedom/archive1

Capitalism and Freedom

This doesn't need to become a featured article, just a good one. I'm worried about a few things, especially organization (there is a big chapter summary section, does that make sense?) and NPOV in the context and impact sections. Could someone help me with this? I would also like it to be accessable and readable, if that's possible. Could you tell me what you think? LittleDan^talk 00:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But every article needs to be become a featured article at some point! ;) Ok, I think it would be best to rework the chapter summary section into a bit of an overview of the book, themes discussed etc. You can get plenty of ideas on how to do this by looking at articles on other books, particularly the featured literature articles. Cheers, --darkliight^[πalk] 00:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My problem was, I couldn't find a good non-fiction book on that list, and with the chapter summaries, it seemed like the ideas were divided fairly cleanly between the chapters. How exactly would you propose I reorganize the summaries? LittleDan^talk 00:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely needs sources and citations, especially in "Context" and "Impact," even for GA status. Consider searching Google Scholar or JSTOR to get academic, economists' and non-economists' perspective on the book. The chapter summaries are all right as they stand for GA status, but I'd like to see them a little beefier, or as suggested above, merged into a single passage. The text has a few possible NPOV (or perhaps just stylistic) issues: e.g. "In accessible, jargon-free language," "The book finds several realistic places...," the first sentence of "Impact" could probably be struck altogether. Isn't there a passage in the text where he advocates abolishing the Fed and letting the market set short term rates? That would be a truly radical reform. :) Good work!--Monocrat 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]