Talk:Neoclassical Schools (1871-today): Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner (→The scope of the article: new section) |
imported>Nick Gardner |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
== The scope of the article == | == The scope of the article == | ||
The opening sentence suggests that the article includes everything that happened in economics since 1871. The | The opening sentence suggests that the article includes everything that happened in economics since 1871. The inaccuracy of that statement becomes evident only when the reader has scanned the text. | ||
It would seem a pity to delete an article into which so much work has gone, but one must sympathise with the previous comment: it is probably fully intelligible only to those already familiar with the concepts referred to. | It would seem a pity to delete an article into which so much work has gone, but one must sympathise with the previous comment: it is probably fully intelligible only to those already familiar with the concepts referred to. |
Revision as of 04:33, 20 October 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Economics Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developed article: complete or nearly so |
Underlinked article? | No |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | J. R. Campos 02:07, 10 April 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
A puzzlement
Though I am interested in economics, and listen to Marketplace on NPR every evening, I cannot make any sense of this article -- I'm thinking it needs both a more general introduction and clearer organization -- many too many subheads! -- Just a thought from a Literature prof! Russell Potter 22:52, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
The scope of the article
The opening sentence suggests that the article includes everything that happened in economics since 1871. The inaccuracy of that statement becomes evident only when the reader has scanned the text.
It would seem a pity to delete an article into which so much work has gone, but one must sympathise with the previous comment: it is probably fully intelligible only to those already familiar with the concepts referred to.
I suggest that we review the situation when the article on the History of Economic Thought (which at present draws no distinction between classical and neoclassical) has been revised.
Nick Gardner 05:32, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
- Economics Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Economics Advanced Articles
- Economics Nonstub Articles
- Economics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Economics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Economics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Economics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Economics External Articles
- Economics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Economics Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup