Wikipedia:Peer review/Ragnar Nurkse's balanced growth theory/archive1

Ragnar Nurkse's Balanced Growth Theory

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to tweak the article in accordance with Wiki guidelines.

Thanks, Abhilasha369 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Why is there an Infobox for Ragnar Nurkse here? This is not a biography (that exists in the article about him). There is no need for such an Infobox for an article about his theory for Balanced growth.
• Section headers should use "sentence case", not "title case" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. Furthermore, several of the header names ("Does not consider competitive sectors", "Supply does not create its own demand", etc) do not comply with MOS:HEAD.
• Why are there bold letterings throughout the article? The usage here does not comply with MOS:BOLD.
• There are several statements in the article that are not cited to sources, failing Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• About "See also": Why is Nurkse's article linked here? It is already linked earlier in the text. Why is Virtuous circle and vicious circle listed here when it can be linked in Export pessimism? See WP:SEEALSO.
• About "External links": Way too many. Why are there links to sites that purports to be Nurkse's biography and obituary? Again, this is not an article about the man. It is supposed to be about one of his theories. Seriously prune this section and leave only links to worthy sites that provide information about the Balanced Growth Theory not found in this article. See Wikipedia:External links.
• File:Ragnar Nurkse.gif does not have proof that it is licensed as claimed; File:Ragnar Nurkse.jpg is a derivative of a copyrighted work and is unlikely to qualify for fair use here; File:GDP PPP Per Capita IMF 2008.svg's source, File:GDP nominal per capita world map IMF 2008.png, does not state what is its base map.
• The abbreviation "pp. " is used for multiple pages or range of pages, "p. " is for single pages. Right now, the References is wrongly using them.

The above are mostly stylistic issues, but they are distracting and should be resolved before seeking comments about content. Jappalang (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello.

• I have made changes to the Bold text according to the guidelines link you mentioned. Thanks.
• About the pp abbreviation, I have made references to the book in general, not to a particular page number. So the use of pp indicates the total number of pages in the book.
• I have written about the picture having CC 3.0 license on your talk page. Sorry, I saw that first.
• About the External Links, I will revise this section according to what you have said. I know it seems weird to put in his biography/obituary but it does contain some important stuff about the theory itself. But still, I'll go through it thoroughly and revise this section.
• Regarding sentence case, do you want me to change only the section headers or even the article name? Because I am unsure of how to do the latter.
• I put in the infobox mainly because there was too much text and it was looking boring... We can try removing it but I was just afraid of the article looking too boring.
• Will cite more. Every sentence. :)
• See also: will make the necessary changes.

Thanks, you've been so helpful! :) Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article for you; in the future, you can do this (moving articles) yourself through the instructions at Wikipedia:Moving a page. As already stated, the Infobox is inappropriate for this article; this is not Nurkse's biography. There are still several links in See also that are already in the article. "Historically inaccurate" is not an appropriate section header as well; furthermore, consider cutting back these headers. They are breaking up the prose too much; too many short sections. An effective section has a substantial amount of content around the theme. Lastly, I have replied to the image issue at its FFD, but it bears to mind to remind you to read the link offered. That photographer's permission is not enough in this case. Jappalang (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have changed certain header names. I tweaked them as much as I could without letting them lose their meaning. Please suggest what else I can do. I was also considering cutting back these headers... But I am confused. If I put them into paragraphs won't it look less readable? Right now, if nothing else, the headers are making the article easy to read in the sense that it can be understood quickly by glancing at the headers.
• About citations, I have sourced more sentences. Quite a few more in fact. But to determine whether or not I've sourced every source worthy sentence, I'll need your feedback please.
• I have made significant changes to "see also". Ragnar Nurkse has been removed. Virtuous circles has been removed and put under export pessimism. The only see also's that remain are other theories similar to (or opposing) Ragnar Nurkse's BGT. Basically the work of his contemporaries. Is this alright?
• About external links. Have cut them down! I removed the ones that were solely about Nurkse or his life. I have left the ones which talk even remotely about his theory though. Is that wrong?
• About File:Ragnar Nurkse.gif... Since I got this from the Estonian wikipedia, shouldn't it be deleted from there too if it is deleted on English Wikipedia? I read and reread the links you mentioned and I understood. These are some of the statements I need clarifications about - "Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted, even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you did not take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain)." On the other hand... "it is permitted, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, to reproduce works of architecture, works of visual art, works of applied art or photographic works which are permanently located in places open to the public by any means except for mechanical contact copying, and to communicate such reproductions of works to the public except if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes." is from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Estonia. Being a derivative work as a photo, I understand, but what category does a memorial stone come under?

Thanks and regards - Abhilasha369 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• You do not need a header for each paragraph, especially if the paragraph is scanty in substance. Furthermore, "Criticism" is an ill-advised header per WP:NPOV; articles are supposed to strive for a neutral treatment of the subject ("Reactions" or "Analysis" might be better). See Wikipedia:Criticism for a nuanced essay on why Criticism sections are discouraged on the account of NPOV. Are there no proponents of Nurkse's theory (if it is such a heavy influence on balanced growth as the article claims, surely there would be some)? Shorter paragraphs/sections are not necessarily conducive to reading; it creates a jerky read.
• Every fact/statistic has to be cited. Every opinion/analysis about Nurske's theorem or any economic theory has to be cited.
• It is fine to link to opposing theorems in See also if they are not mentioned/linked in the main text. That said, "Dual economy" is already linked in the main text.
• I fear you still do not understand the issue at hand regarding the image.
  • "Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted, even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you did not take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain)."

    The statement is clear here (The memorial is copyrighted, it is not in the public domain: you need the permission of the object's copyright holder). The second statement is referring to the photograph, not the object; hence it is not relevant to the issue of the "three-dimensional object"'s copyright.

  • "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Estonia"

    Estonia's freedom of panorama ruling allows photographs of permanently installed artworks in public places for non-commercial purposes only. "Free" images on Wikipedia are for all uses, including commercial purposes. As such, the photograph is not a "free" image by Wikipedia (and Commons) standards.

  • "what category does a memorial stone come under?"

    I do not what answer you are seeking with this question. The memorial is a 3D work of art; the photograph is a derivative work of this 3D work of art.

• What the Estonian Wikipedia does is none of my (or this project's) business (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to other projects and non-project stuff as well). If the other Wikipedia choose to indulge in possible illegal activities or condone such violations, that is their business to correct. Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Infobox is gone. :)
• Virtuous circle and vicious circle, Ragnar Nurkse and other such links have been de linked everywhere but their first references.
• header names have been removed and changed, according to the need.
• more citations have been made
• about File:Ragnar Nurkse.gif, the uploader has made some more information available about the picture. It seems that the picture was taken from Bank of Estonia's publishing, which is a central bank and its possible that its publications are in public domain.
• I want to delete File:Ragnar Nurkse.jpg. You are right, it is a copyvio. What is the procedure? I clicked delete but apparently only an ADMIN has the right to delete it.
• about File:GDP PPP Per Capita IMF 2008.svg, this file is the picture for the Economics toolbar template. I am not sure about its license but it is used in hundreds of economics articles. What should be done about this? I am not the uploader, just an Economics toolbar user.
• about the pp abbreviation... i have made citations in general. Not to specific pages. So the pp. you see in my references is a reference to the total number of pages in the publication. Not anything else. I believe this is the automatic syntax which gets created once you click the citation tool... I simply filled in the blanks of the citation box.

I hope I have sorted out all the uncyclopedic features of this article! Thanks and regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)