Talk:Time preference/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: SurfingPenguinPhd (talk · contribs) 23:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 02:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I am quickfailing this nomination. First, the article does not comply with the Manual of Style layout guideline (GA criterion 1b). Second, there is an uncited section and several paragraphs lack citations (2b). Third, it appears to contain the article authors' original thoughts, and does not neutrally describe the subject in summary style (2c; 3b; 4). For example:

• Work on time preference with John Rae’s “The Sociological Theory of Capital” in an attempt to answer why wealth differed across nations.
• However, they failed to interpret the interest on a riskless loan and hence denounced the time preference discounter as sinful and usurious.
• This may be due to the varying elicitation methods for the studies themselves. Put another way, how a study asks questions to uncover the discount rate can influence the result itself. (also lacks any citations)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.