This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Finance and
Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
I'll review this. I've copyedited slightly, so please revert if necessary. I removed the two "See also" links in prospect theory; those hatnotes are used for situations where there is no natural link to a subarticle that treats the section topic in more detail. That's not the case here.
My initial comment is that the article is poorly structured. The lead should summarize the article, but there is quite a bit of information in the lead that is not in the body of the article; in fact the article is written as if the first sentence is the lead. I think this structural issue needs to be fixed before the review can proceed.
A couple of other comments from a quick glance through:
Why is an unpublished master's thesis a reliable source for our purposes?
The lead does now summarize the article, and I think you were right to remove the unpublished master's thesis. At the moment the article is not GA quality.
There are a lot of long quotes; see
this version, in which I marked them in bold -- they're the majority of the article, except for the section on prospect theory (which is not the primary topic), and there's a long quote even there. We should be putting this information into our own words, not just assembling quotes from the sources.
Any quotes that we do have should be cited directly after the end of the quote. Here that's a minor point because most of them should go.
The whole of the first paragraph of "Prospect theory" has no citation.
The citation to
[1] is odd; this seems to be just a collection of quotes. Who wrote that page, and why is it a good source? Shouldn't we be going to the textbooks that discuss this rather than a quote list on the web with no surrounding discussion?
I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this, rather than put it on hold; there's really not much here beyond the quotes. For this to reach GA it needs to have a reliably sourced definition and discussion, in our own words.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
19:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
link between momentum and disposition effect
The source linked to the quote "Barberis has noted that the disposition effect is not a rational sort of conduct because of the reality of
stock market momentum, meaning stocks that have performed well in the past six months appear to perform well in the next six months, and stocks that have done badly in the past six months tend to do poorly in the next six months." does not say this.
That paper actually tries to explain the disposition effect without appealing to irrationality. What's the actual source of the quoted statement?
Liteagle (
talk)
09:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply