Wikipedia:Featured article review/Economy of Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Economy of Africa

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/BEF, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/Version 1.0 assesment/Featured content. Sandy 14:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a good copy-edit to meet modern FA standards (2a). Tony 12:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this topic really exist? Africa isn't socially unified, and the regional economies aren't integrated at all. Oil states in the north, failed states in the center, Euroized states in the south. Harmonica Wolfowitz 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder whether there's commonality in the post-colonial economy? Tony 03:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concern is writing quality (2a). Marskell 08:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I started to copyedit this article (see diff) and found it rather tough going. I'd appreciate some feedback before I commit a significant amount of time and effort to this task: is my copyediting going to be adequate to rescue this article from FARC? Just to be clear, "No, your copyediting skills are not adequate to the task at hand" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I'd rather have slightly hurt feelings now than feel I wasted my time and energy later.

In response to Harmonica Wolfowitz' query, I'd say the topic exists, as much as Economy of Asia or Economy of the United States or even Economy of Scotland. The economies of Delaware and Arkansas, or Edinburgh and the Isle of Lewis, are vastly different, and yet we can meaningfully talk about the economy of the larger region. The fact that Africa has broadly identifiable economic "regions" just means that all of those regions should be addressed in a comprehensive article on the topic. Peirigill 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be excellent if you continued your ce! I'm full up doing Economy of India at the moment. Tony 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks just fine to me - it was one of the best FAs when it was featured, and IMO, it still is. Rebecca 05:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Update I'm about halfway through with copyediting, in part because it's difficult, and in part because I haven't logged enough hours yet. The article did need copyediting, but I think I'm resolving the main prose issues. I'm still concerned about the length and detail of the TOC, which reflects organizational problems with the article. I suspect that a few of these subsections can be consolidated. Peirigill 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're doing a great job on the copy edit, so I don't want you to feel blindsided when I vote to Remove if there is not a single inline cite in the entire article. (Contrast with Economy of India.) Sandy 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Better written thanks to Peirigill's magic wand, but Sandy's right: no inline citations, no FA status. It's particularly important for a technical article such as this to ground the facts in authoritative references. In addition, I'm concerned at superficial treatment of a number of key aspects of the topic. For example: "Central banks and currencies"—Two short sentences with red links, and a huge list of central banks. Um ... what's the relationship between the central banks and their governments? Who sets interest rates? How are appointments made to the boards? I've carpet-bombed about eight of the contributors to ask for their input. Tony 04:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree that more detail is needed, this article has to be kept quite general as it is such a massive subject. It is already quite lengthy, and more depth would be better placed in subpages. Peirigill has done some great work copy editting this, and that concern has for the most part been addressed. The other real issue is the lack of citations. I am the primary author of most the text, and some time soon I will go through my sources and add some more specific references. - SimonP 05:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove (Reluctant). It's been 18 days in FARC, over a month in FAR, and still no inline citations. The work done has been impressive, but FAs must have inline citations. Sandy 05:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Since I'm still working on the prose issues, and the primary editor has just promised to address the citation problem, I'd like to petition for more time before final consensus is determined. Thanks! Peirigill 09:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, by the way, I've just added the first three in-line citations. (Hey, it's a start!) I'm counting on SimonP to do the lion's share of this, of course. SimonP, I'm cutting out and reorganizing whole paragraphs and sections. Please feel free to reorganize or restore as you see fit. Peirigill 11:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK! But inline cites need to start appearing in quantity soon. Marskell 22:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait (not too much longer though), because it is such a good article, it's a shame to delist it for lack of referencing. Sandy 01:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Further comment about the level of detail. Simon, "quite general" is different from "summary style". Generality is not a good objective; we need specific, precise details in summary style. In other words, we need a few key facts about central banks under that heading, not just a couple of red-link sentences and a huge list that mostly comprises red links to central banks. The role of central banks has changed significantly in many countries over the past few decades: where do African central banks stand: two or three sentences would be adequate, informing our readers, say, that "Of the ?38 CBs, ?nine are run on Western lines, with independent appointments to boards and the responsibility for setting interest-rates without interference from politicians. The remaining CBs have a restricted role in administering what is, in effect, the will of their political masters." Something like that?

This relates to a broader problem that I have with the article: it purports to cover an economy (that of Africa), but contains almost no mechanistic information. The terms micro- and macro-economic policy/practice are absent. I'm not an economist, but my reading of the daily newspaper has given me enough general knowledge to want to know a basic summary sketch of the CB roles. And the CFA franc, largely administered by Paris, is an interesting experiment in post-colonial control: has it been good for their economies? Has it effectively linked them? In these respects, the article is superficial, and fails to provide our readers with valuable information. Perhaps the CIA World Factbook (quite good, despite its name), would provide a quick and easy source for fixing such gaps. Another gap is the absence of information about Africa's economic prospects—at least a summary is required at the end, of the main issues that the continent, and the rest of the world, will need to address if Africa is to pull out of its current crises of post-colonial mismanagement, global heating and its economic ramifications, the patently unfair international rules on trade, and the impact of disease. Where are these issues tied together in summary style.

Against this, there's rather too much information on dependency theory and its competing siblings; and the sections on language and culture, and on foreign aid and debt relief, might be merged and trimmed. Why, for example, tell us that "An average African faced annual inflation of over 60% from 1990 until 2002" if the very next sentence admits that "This number is somewhat misleading as much of the inflation is accounted for by only a few countries"?

I want this to remain an FA, but I'm afraid that it's not yet of FA standard in terms of 1b (comprehensiveness), specifically, the control of the level of detail. Where are the contributors I messaged yesterday? Tony 04:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to a few of Tony's points:

• "the sections on language and culture... might be merged and trimmed." Um, Tony, I merged and trimmed those sections a day before you posted. ???? I'll look at doing the same for the foreign aid and debt relief sections.

OK, sorry, I didn't mean to impose a burden on you, Perigill. I was addressing the contributors, wherever they are. Perhaps moving the CB list into a daughter article might do the trick WRT length?

No burden... just a little confused. Peirigill 09:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• "The terms micro- and macro-economic policy/practice are absent." Does that matter? It seems to me those topics are covered in the article.

I do think it's a gap. I suppose if none of the original contributors can be bothered to address the issue, one might turn a blind eye to it for now; I think that economy-of-country articles do need to cover basic technicalities such as these.

• The table of central banks appears to be a stumbling block. Why not just create a new page called Central banks and currencies of Africa, remove the table from the Economy of Africa article entirely, and include the link to the new list of banks in the "See also" section? The article discusses how African governments rely on non-African banks, and why banks in Africa have struggled, so removing the table won't affect comprehensiveness. A detailed discussion of African banking policies seems a little "micro" for this article; I don't think it's essential here, given the broad scope of the topic.

Good idea.

• "Another gap is the absence of information about Africa's economic prospects—at least a summary...of the main issues that the continent, and the rest of the world, will need to address if Africa is to pull out of its current crises." Talking about Africa's prospects sounds like a violation of not predicting the future. The article devotes a large amount of time to this issues of poverty and the factors (such as corruption, geographical barriers, disease, unfavorable foreign trade policy, etc.) that contibute to or perpetuate the cycle of poverty. I really think this concern is already adequately addressed. Peirigill 01:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Tony 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - When adding web references, it's important to note the date the page was accessed to help recover the reference if the link goes dead. An easy way to do this is with {{cite web}}. I've converted one such reference here as an example. Pagrashtak 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)