Talk:Cameron Hepburn

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Cameron Hepburn is notable for the following reasons (among other ones):

His work has been referenced in two recent news articles (Nov. 2, 3, 2014): http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/441272/why-gdp-is-useless-in-gauging-a-country-wealth and http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-02/what-s-wealth-if-you-can-t-count-it

He's Director, Economics of Sustainability, The Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/people/550

^This is the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD (one of the best universities in the world). -- Unsigned by User:AWDeconomicseditor ^talk

He hasn't done anything notable and hasn't received any awards (unless you can add any awards he has received to the article). --I am Kethrus ^{Talk to me!} 01:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think that this is a good start to the article. As noted below, there is some discretion on whether this article should be deemed notable or not. Obviously there is notability in the fact that he is an Oxford Professor as well as researcher.

The introduction is good however, in my opinion, and lays out the various reasons as to why Cameron Hepburn should be considered notable. I wonder though how the author was planning on laying out the rest of his article? It might help to use his accomplishments as subheadings so you can go into greater detail as to what he has done and how his research has influenced environmental policy. Also what is his history/background? Has he received any recognition for his research?

It seems that the author has used branching in/out numerous times throughout the introduction - which is an important way to achieve the "perfect article". There is definitely space for the author to include relevant images and maybe even charts/graphs of his research throughout the article. There is also space for the article to be added to lengthwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandradenis (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

The Wikipedia article describes Cameron Hepburn, a prominent economist. The text focuses on the institutions he is a part of.

Overall, the article is very well sourced, and I see no issues arising over lack of clarity of citations. Also, the author successfully uses neutral point of view. In regards of relevancy, my question for the author is: has the author only been published three times? The more publications that are added to the article, the more important Hepburn will seem. The sidebar is helpful, however could be added to by including details such as date of birth. However, the article doesn’t yet meet the length required by the assignment.

One structural edit is that the author should minimize the use of quotations, given that typical Wikipedia style is to paraphrase sources rather than quoting them directly. Also, surely Hepburn’s professional experience have shaped his opinion and perspective as a researcher, so an elaboration on that section would be. The times he has been called upon to advise for the UN and OECD also contribute to his importance and could be expanded upon. The article has a solid foundation, and with some elaboration, will be a good addition to Wikipedia. 216.15.123.250 (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

The Wikipedia article describes Cameron Hepburn, a prominent economist. The text focuses on the institutions he is a part of.

Overall, the article is very well sourced, and I see no issues arising over lack of clarity of citations. Also, the author successfully uses neutral point of view. In regards of relevancy, my question for the author is: has the author only been published three times? The more publications that are added to the article, the more important Hepburn will seem. The sidebar is helpful, however could be added to by including details such as date of birth. However, the article doesn’t yet meet the length required by the assignment.

One structural edit is that the author should minimize the use of quotations, given that typical Wikipedia style is to paraphrase sources rather than quoting them directly. Also, surely Hepburn’s professional experience have shaped his opinion and perspective as a researcher, so an elaboration on that section would be. The times he has been called upon to advise for the UN and OECD also contribute to his importance and could be expanded upon. The article has a solid foundation, and with some elaboration, will be a good addition to Wikipedia. Lvonkeszycki (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to Peer Reviews

Thank you all for your time and consideration.

I added additional publications to the "Selected publications" section which supports Hepburn's case for "notability."

Two of the publications I posted had gotten attention recently: http://www.cameronhepburn.com/news/archive/rain-and-bamboo-shoots-philippine-daily-inquirer/, http://www.cameronhepburn.com/news/archive/less-precision-more-truth-paper-published-in-bank-of-england-conference-programme/

I also split up the article into sections which improves clarity and also makes it easier for the reader to see facts that support Hepburn's case for notability.

I kept the quotations because I did not want to put in the work to replace them with paraphrasing AND because I think they are fine in the context of the article.

I did not want to work to put a lot more information into the article in terms of text and images.

Thank you for your feedback.

AWDeconomicseditor (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)