Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of Mexico/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pagrashtak (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 29 May 2007 (→[[Economy of Mexico]]: sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Economy of Mexico

Comment After reading the second sentence of the lead, I've spotted the use of "recently" - a little time-dependent and vague. When was that? CloudNine 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, and I thought I had the answer: 2004. Yet, as I was looking for a table to reference it, I realized that neither the CIA Factbook -the source being cited- nor the World Bank keep historical data in their databases, at least not for PPP GDP. (The World Bank does keep historical data for GDP and GNI at current dollars). Surfing the web I found PPP GDP data for 2004, and PPP GDP data for 2003. These data confirm that it was indeed 2004 the year that Mexico "crossed the trillion dollar threshold". I'll change the "recently" for, "in 2004. --the Dúnadan 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I'm no expert in these matters, so take the following with a pinch of salt, but I'll make them nevertheless!
Trillion, I'll add a link. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah, but trillion and billion are links to disambiguation pages... which one of each are you using?! The Rambling Man 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOS on headings like "Banking System", should be "Banking system".
Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two "after"s in the first sentence of History section makes for weird reading. In fact, that first sentence is about fifty words long, too long for my small brain!
Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is on par in italics? It's English after all.
I though phrases like "on par" or "vis-à-vis", being "imported" from other languages, could be written in Italics, but I am not sure. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These words are foreign loanwords but they've become so common in English vernacular that marking them with italics doesn't serve any purpose (per MoS). Resurgent insurgent 07:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you had written French "en par", it would belong in italics, but the French-derived English "on par" does not. —Cuiviénen 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, on par is not marked with italics anymore. Circa is, should it be considered vernacular English too? --the Dúnadan 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1940 to 1970 GDP increased sixfold, whereas population doubled.[7]" - perhaps "..while.." instead of "..whereas..", minor point.
Good point. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DASH for year ranges such as 1981&ndash82.
Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(protected constitutionally)" could be un-parenthesised and just written "...both of which were protected constitutionally..."
True. Fixed. They still are protected, though. =) --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comprised by..." - that'd be better off as "consisting of..." or "comprising..."
Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of this reduction was done in rural..." might read better as "Most of this reduction was achieved in rural..."
Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regional economies section starts with "Nonetheless..." - feels a bit strange.
True, I had noticed that too. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As it can be seen from the map.." - don't like it - just refer to facts rather than a graphic.
Done. The data in the map is referenced in the text. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2006 est.) vs (est. 2003) - consistency check needed for how to represent the estimates.
Fixed, using (YEAR est.)--the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(see Food and Agriculture table on the right)" - I'd prefer to just use the same citation as you use in the table itself.
Done. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)--the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand first use of Tm to "metric tonne".
Done. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(a significant source of revenue for the government, of almost 62 per cent of the company's sales)" - no need to parenthesise this.
Fixed.--the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Financial sector section has two citations in total, which may be enough, but the text is a bit dry with few wikilinks, perhaps look to improve this section a bit? Could consider IPO, American Depositary Receipt etc.
Will work on that. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...March 31st 2006...." - WP:MOS for dates etc.
Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope some of these comments are useful. Let me know if there's anything more I can offer. The Rambling Man 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful! Thanks! --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. I've copy-edited the lead to demonstrate that the whole article requires considerable, careful work by fresh eyes to satisfy the requirement for a "professional" standard of writing (and of formatting in the case of the overlinking). Why are simple years linked? Why dictionary terms such as industry? Can't see the point of linking all of those countries—what relevance will the reader get out of Canada? Nothing. Audit links throughout, and minimise to focus our readers on the important ones. Quite a lot of redundancy. Tony 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to be that "fresh eye" to work on the article to meet 1a? As for the relevance of Canada, being part of NAFTA, and this being an article about Economics, I think it is relevant. --the Dúnadan 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canada itself is relevant, but just tell me what in the Canada article you want to interrupt your readers to show them? At the very least, pipe it to the section on the Canadian economy, or to a separate article on that topic if one exists. Ration your links and they'll be more powerful, and not blue distractions. I don't edit FACs, but why don't you research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. Tony 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the avise. I'll compare the edit summaries of FA Economy of India. --the Dúnadan 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've eliminated those two pictures. I am working in formatting references using the {{cite}} templates. Maybe presenting the article as an FA candidate was a hasty decision. I should have asked for a review. In any case, I will try to fix what you suggested today. --the Dúnadan 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Please use {{es_icon}} on Spanish-language sources. WP:DASH attention needed. Please see WP:CITE/ES; most sources are not fully formatted. Sources need a publihser and last access date, and author and date when available. There are some completely unformatted refs, like ^ [2]. See also need not repeat terms linked in the text; for example, Mexico shouldn't be a See also in an article about Mexico. The article is not thoroughly cited (Mexico has shown interest in becoming an associate member of Mercosur and ... ?????) Full dates (month day, year) should be wikilinked (see WP:MOSNUM). Spanish terms should be in italics (see WP:MOS). That's just a start; I haven't reviewed thoroughly.
Like I told the previous reviewer, I am in the process of changing the format of all references using templates. I'm half way through. From all your comments, it seems most of your concerns relate to style and format (if references are properly formatted, if dates are properly formatted, if non-English terms are properly formatted...). That can easily be fixed. At least there aren't any complaints about content (i.e. completeness, NPOV, etc.). --the Dúnadan 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't examined the content yet (sorry :-), because there are structural items still to be addressed. I hope you're aware I have an inhouse expert who will be examining the content once all else is addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'd love to read the opinion and advise from an expert in economics. --the Dúnadan 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take my reference comments to mean that these are the only problems with the article. They are the only parts I reviewed. You say you're halfway through, but it doesn't appear so. I don't see "language=Spanish" parameters, most PDFs are not marked as such with "format=PDF", and you need to remove "format=html". Format is only used for non-HTML links. Many references are a simple titled link, and one reference even reads "[2]". Pagrashtak 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some issues:
    • The MXN vs MXP discussion is hard to follow, and seems in outright error sometimes. What is the difference between MXN and MXP? I assume MXN are "new pesos" and MXP are "old pesos" per the 1993 exchange; however the article then gives an exchange rate for MXP to USD??? Why would there be a US exchange rate for a defunct currency? The section could use more explanation and cleanup for clarity.
    • Some sections seem underreferenced. Much of the Agriculture and food production section makes claims about agricultural production (see the first paragraph) that have no references. Where does this information come from. Several other places suffer from the same problem.
    • Print sources do not cite page numbers. If someone is to check your references, it seems reasonable to include what pages from the print sources they come from.
    • The article seems to lack comprehensiveness. No treatment is given to certain key issues in the Mexican economy which are prevalent in the press; the loss of Mexican manufacturing jobs to China has been in the news, even in the U.S. Emmigration to the U.S. has had a PROFOUND effect on the economy in Mexico; several well researched books have been published on the subject in just the past year; yet this article gives no treatment to it. The article ignores some well-publicized and widely published facets of the Mexican economy, and it seems for want in those areas.
The article seems to be not quite FA ready. It is huge, and I can respect that, but it is a huge topic and lacks the comprehensiveness I would expect from an FA.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MXN and MXP was a mistake, it has been corrected. The exchange rate refers to MXN.
  • Page numbers to printed sources can also be added, that is a minor issue.
  • As for the emigration of Mexicans to the US and its "profound" effect of the economy, I don't quite see your point. I am not defending the FA status of this article, but maybe you can point the editors to some of these "well researched" books. The impact, however, is mentioned in the Remittances section, and given its due weight. It speaks about the states which receive the greatest amount of remittances and talks about the economics of the phenomenon. The political and social issues of the phenomenon are discussed in Demography_of_Mexico#Emigration_from_Mexico. Perhaps a link to that article would be appropriate, but I wouldn't elaborate on non-economical issues here.
  • Emigration has a much more widespread effect on economy than remitances. The economic effect on the loss of male labor has been well covered. This has been a big part of the scholarship on the economy of Mexico in recent years and its ommission in this article is glaring. See this page from NPR to see the issue's treatment in mainstream press. This site has a long bibliography of migration issues; several of these works deal with the economic impact of labor movement into the U.S. To claim that the only impact of emigration from Mexico to the U.S. is the return of cash in the form of remittances seems a less than comprehensive treatment of the issue.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, your last comment is a little vague. You said that the article ignores well-publicized and widely facets. Could you be more specific as to which facets you are referring to so the editors can include them?
--the Dúnadan 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Economy_of_Mexico/archive1&oldid=134367513"