Talk:Monetary Policy Committee (United Kingdom)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMonetary Policy Committee (United Kingdom) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2010Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monetary Policy Committee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article is stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Image complies to fair use requirements.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  • Numbers over nine should be written numerically, and up to nine, written out. E.g. It comprises 8 members, only 5 days, 2 years, etc.
  • Hyphens are used instead of dashes, see WP:DASH.
  • There are some low-level grammar issues like "most commonly via the setting the rate". Check for other similar issues.
  • Perhaps the former members section could be in two columns.

Summary: There are just some small minor issues that need to be addressed before it can be passed as a Good Article. I will allow up to seven days for these issues to be fixed.

Final summary: Thank you so much for all your hard work in helping make this a better article. I have split the membership section into two columns, I feel that it looks neater this way. If you disagree, you may change it back. I am now confident that this article meets all the requirements for a Good Article and I am happy to pass it. Well done! -- S Masters (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

confusion[edit]

Hi, I was just reading this article and had some questions.

  1. The article states, "the Committee was designed to be independent of political interference" and then shortly thereafter states, "Each member has one vote, which they can expected to be held to account for." But accountability is a very important political tool. I would translate this as, "It is supposed to be that each member operates without pressure" and, "pressure can be applied because of an accountability measure." At the very least, wouldn't it make sense to discuss this contradiction? There might be an academic article on judging independence of an national bank.
  2. This article has about 35 references and about 24 are published by the Bank of England itself. Is this not considered self published? At the very least, aren't these primary sources? Could more of these be found in secondary sources?

Thanks for any help resolving these confusions. 018 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Committee was designed to be independent of political interference" was (supposed to, I grant you) reflect the opening paragraphs of the History section, which explains how, in pre-MPC days, the interest rates were set by people who were first and foremost politicians. They did (or merely ran the risk of, depending on your POV) make decisions that were not in the country's best interests merely to save their own political careers. Thus your second inference (about having pressure) is the correct on. Should I clarify what I meant?
Yes, it has a lot of self-published sources. This is something I did give some thought to. However, I do feel it meets all five of the WP:SELFPUB criteria; if you can provide specific items that you would prefer additional secondary references I shall by all means look. The MPC has only been around for 13 years, unfortunately, which limits reporting in the very best sources (particularly dead-tree). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jarry1250, I didn't know about WP:SELFPUB, thanks for pointing that out to me! There are two possible objections to that, both marginal. The first is the paragraph

The result was almost a decade of unprecedented stability in prices, though even the Bank itself does not consider this entirely due to the careful use of interest rates. In an almost ten year period, inflation did not once stray outside of one percentage point of the target, despite predictions that it would be forty or more percent of the time.[3] A 2007 report produced for the Treasury Committee also noted that having the MPC independent of the government "has reduced the scope for short-term political considerations to enter into the determination of interest rates."[3] The creation of the MPC, it says, brought with it "an immediate credibility gain".[3]

Some of this material might be perceived to violate, SELFPUB's rule that "the material is not unduly self-serving."
The second is, "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Again, I don't think either of these objections is so huge that I'm going to start deleting information from the article, but but I think both of these are borderline. I'd think, at the least, finding secondary sources for the paragraph I quoted would be worth it.
Finally, I appreciate now (after reading the article and not just the lead) that there was a change. But this is not apparent in the lead, perhaps mentioning that the committee is relatively new and that it was designed to decrease the political pressure is worth putting in the lead rather than just that it was designed to exist outside of political pressure. 018 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbertolotti:Would the Purpose of a peer review to check the entry's 'good article' status?18:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it may help with improving the article.Lbertolotti (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Farvaque's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Farvaque has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The article should refer immediately (in the title / keywords) to the Bank of England Other Monetary Policy Committees exist, and the title of the article could thus be misleading


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Farvaque has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Etienne Farvaque & Norimichi Matsueda & Pierre-Guillaume Meon, 2008. "How monetary policy committees impact the volatility of policy rates," Working Papers CEB 08-026.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monetary Policy Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monetary Policy Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monetary_Policy_Committee_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=1202595806"