Talk:Walter Adams (economist)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Well, I've reviewed this article and I have a few comments that need to be addressed before I would feel comfortable in promoting this article to GA status.

1. The article needs an infobox that accurately conveys all the important information on the subject. I suggest either Template:Infobox_Economist or Template:Infobox_Person, whichever you feel would be best for the subject. A full list can be found at [[Category:People_infobox_templates]]
2. The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must briefly summarize all of the important points that are discussed in the article. In addition, it should not contain any facts that are not present in the body of the article. For example, you mention that he testified before thirty-six congressional committees (which by the way, should be written out in words rather than represented by the numerical digits) but this fact is not expanded upon in the article itself (just mentioned again in an uncited "paragraph").
3. If possible, the early life section should be expanded. Who were his parents and what did they do? For example, if his mother or father was an economist or professor, it makes a big difference than if his parents were uneducated or farmers. What was his life like before he got his undergraduate degree? Were there any significant experiences during his college years that influenced his later life? Are there any more details about his service or experiences in the war and any influence that they may have had upon him? His own words on his war experience (from an interview perhaps) might be interesting and informative as well. You don't have to answer all of these questions specifically, but these are the types of things that could be used to expand the early life section of the article. As it stands, this section is very weak and there is almost certainly some information out there that could be used to improve the section.
4. The same goes for the "Professor of Economics" section. Why did he receive the honour of Distinguished Professor so quickly? If he was promoted to President of MSU, he must have had an at least somewhat illustrious career that can be described in this section - most of the "paragraphs" are only two sentences long and require expansion. It could also use more testimonials from students or general notions of how good he was a professor, both as a teacher and on a personal level. Right now, I'd say that the article is neutral, as it doesn't particularly advocate him either way, but it doesn't really give the reader an idea of the quality of his work or personality. We have one testimonial on how tough yet good one of his courses was and another citing (but not explaining) the fact that he won a distinguished professor award. We're given basic facts, but left with no real idea of how he was as a professor. Anyone can write articles, but how were the ones you mentioned received? Lauded, chastised, ignored? Were they significant contributions or merely just the "I have to publish X papers by date Y" quagmire that professors often find themselves in? And why did they pick Adams for the congressional hearings? There's nothing in this section that explains either what he did or said while testifying or why congress would pick him out of a hundred other economics professors. And how rare is it that someone is called before congress to testify in budget hearings? I can't tell from this article.
5. The first "paragraph" of the President of MSU section needs a reference, as does the last sentence. Also, a sentence is not sufficient for its own paragraph - I suggest going into more detail about the autobiography. What did it say? What were the circumstances under which he wrote it? Did it reveal anything shocking or unexpected? How was its reception? Again, these aren't necessarily specific questions so much as types of questions that could be used as a basis for expansion.
6. The Bobby Knight gift-exchange and everything after it requires a citation.

Normally, when a review encounters a small number of problems it is put on hold for a period of up to seven days so that the problems can be resolved. In this case, however, I believe the problems to be too numerous and major for the article to be put on hold (the problems listed are just the most pressing ones - there are more stylistic concerns that have to be looked at as well once the larger issues are dealt with). When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)