The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 June 2023 [1].

---

Black Monday (1987)[edit]

Nominator(s):  § Lingzhi (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One day in late 1987 I stood speechless in the waiting area of a major hospital. A doctor had just told me that my mother had only a 50/50 chance of surviving the day. [Spoiler: she lived, but lost her eyesight.] As he turned to leave, the room was silent. Doctors, nurses, and patients' family members were huddled in a tight ring under the TV set on the wall. Numbers were scrolling by on the screen. Their own problems were set aside as they watched an even larger crisis unfolding. It was Black Monday, 1987, the biggest stock market crash since 1929. The day still lives in the institutional memory of the Federal Reserve, the NYSE, and similar organizations in Japan, Germany, and other countries around the world. Its impact on popular culture is reflected in Black Monday (TV series). § Lingzhi (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Buidhe Note: Lingzhi has requested that I avoid doing a source review (or any review?) of this article, or any others of theirs at FAC. I am not planning to, and I hope that whoever does is appropriately thorough at reviewing the article and verifying sources.

• Now after looking at this article, I cannot help but notice that some sources are missing ISBNs, DOIs, and/or other identifiers.
  • Oh yeah, I'm rusty. Forgot. Straightforward matter to add them in. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also confused by the article structure; there are subsections for five countries even though the crash affected—directly or indirectly—far more countries than that. Is there a reason these particular countries are picked for extensive elaboration, while others aren't mentioned at all?

I won't bother you any more(t · c) buidhe 04:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • It would be overkill to cover every country, so I chose a few that were instructive and/or representative. The crash started in Asia, moved to Europe, and then (famously) walloped the US. Japan and Hong Kong stand in for Asia; moreover they are both instructive. Japan's stock market and economy were among the least damaged through time, while Hong Kong experienced considerably worse damage. Hong Kong is also emblematic of some of the speculative nature of the stock bubble. New Zealand is instructive because its post-crash policies were the opposite of other countries', and it suffered significantly for that reason... Britain stands in for Europe. Why not West Germany? Oddly enough, I just couldn't find anything. I can tell you this: West Germany's economy was in far better shape than that of the US; the West Germans were famously phobic about inflation, and many people consider the verbal tiff between Baker and the Germans as the pinprick that burst the bubble. And the US because it is the US. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While I certainly see how this organization would be useful for a research paper or similar, I don't see how covering certain countries and not others can meet the FA requirement to be comprehensive. One possibility would be to move "by country" to a different article and instead have a section for how the crash developed chronologically across major stock markets. I am inclined to oppose on this point. (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am completely unsurprised. As it was earlier in another article, when you were adamant that a hurricane is not a storm, you have some form of perspective on reality. I ain't taking jack shit out of this article and moving it to another one. Please Oppose now, and be on about your own business, or strike. § Lingzhi (talk)
      • I'm not surprised either, and its one in a succession of early early opposes over a single issues (my way or the highway), from this coord who knows that the well is being tainted for later reviewers. As a possible solution (and was going to bring this up anyway (with less drama and taking toys away), should the sections be merged under a "contagion" type header. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe the article is comprehensive. There are different ways to consider or measure how the concept of "comprehensive" should be unpacked. There is not only one approach or paradigm for organization, with (therefore) only one definition of "comprehensive" (similar to the way that the character Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory would view this sort of question). That is, Buidhe's argument above is "approach==geographical; and (therefore) comprehensive==all countries, or none". But my method of organization is (as I mentioned) "all instructive cases". I believe I have included all instructive cases. Forex, removing New Zealand would really gut the point that supplying liquidity was the main antidote for the crash (or... actually... for the events immediately after the crash... but that's a fine point). And finally, info about all countries just does not exist. Those countries were not studied. Why weren't they studied? Umm, I would suggest they were not studied because their cases were not instructive, for various reasons. § Lingzhi (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be overkill to cover every country, so I chose a few that were instructive and/or representative - Is this not OR? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ixtal: No, I don't think so. Actually, 1) I didn't really choose them; they chose themselves. My search for sources chose them. What you see is what I found. More specifically, I started from the core and most authoritative sources on the subject, and worked my way outward to include places they discussed. My discussion very directly reflects the discussions in the central texts, 2) I never make a claim in the article that these sources are representative! 3) If you read WP:OR, I don't see anything there that resembles your line of reasoning, and 4) See Johnbod's comments below. § Lingzhi (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that comprehensiveness requires a particular article organization, but it is more about ensuring that the coverage of each country is roughly proportional to the RS coverage (including non-English RS). Another reason that the article structure seems questionable to me is that it's leading to content in the lead that is not cited in the article; Malaysia, for example, is mentioned in the lead but not the body. (t · c) buidhe 00:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. If you think I'm gonna dig up German-language sources for this topic, you are very sorely mistaken. In fact, if you think anyone needs to dig up German-language sources for this article, you are very sorely mistaken. Here is the take-home point: no German-language source is gonna say anything that is both significant and new when compared to the English-language sources. The English-language sources are extremely in-depth and cover the topic very thoroughly. They offer several different insights and explanations. Many of them were written by native speakers of German (or Japanese, or...). More importantly, if German sources had anything both significant and new to say, the English-language sources would find out and would quote them. Economics is a huge field. There are I-dunno-how-many-thousands of published economists. If a German paper caused a stir by saying something new, someone would translate it into English. Probably the authors themselves would wanna translate it into English, to further their careers with wider publication... As for Malaysia: 1) It's actually sometimes OK to put one or two things in the WP:LEAD which aren't in the article, and 2) if you think the Malaysian info is not that kind of info, then we can 2a) add a sentence about Malaysia to body text, or 2b) delete Malaysia from the Lead. The end of the story here is, you are grasping at straws, wasting everyone's time. You have no argument based on comprehensiveness. Oppose or strike, and be done with it. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that the German stock-market is generally notoriously stable, and therefore uninteresting to investors, with large holdings by banks and so on. Long lists of short sections covering a vast range of countries are generally a curse in WP, & without looking at the article yet their omission here seems absolutely right. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, this section would be better organised under an overall, chronological "spread" or "contagion" main-header. The danger with the current structure is tack-on sub-headings such as "also in Liechtenstein"... Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to run out the door now, but let me set your mind at ease: unless someone is editing to make a WP:POINT (for whatever personal reason), no one is gonna do that. This topic is not sexy at all. There are no fanboys. In fact, it's work to add a section to this article. Liquidity this, portfolio that, blah blah blah. It's work to add any real content... Look at how stable it has been, aside from my edits, over the years... § Lingzhi (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be better served by cause -> effect, than the current structure which is just effect. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Ceoil: Problem is, nobody knows the causes. :-) Years ago when I started working on this, I totally followed the official reports which discounted the importance of Baker's remarks. But later, after investigating comments by Goldsztajn and reading about Japan and Asia, I have swung around to the belief that in my very humble opinion it was a powder keg that was destined to explode, and Baker threw the match. But I can't say that in the article. No one has proven anything. As I said earlier, in economics, everything affects everything. So in my opinion, all we can do is focus first on "effects" and then list some "possible causes". § Lingzhi (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil[edit]

• Lead: Should this be a note, or abbreviated In Australia and New Zealand the day is referred to as Black Tuesday because of the time zone difference from other English-speaking countries
• Background: During a strong bull market, - driven by?
  • Haha, good question. As you may have gathered from scanning the article, economics (the queen of the social sciences) is quite often a field where every simple question has five or six complicated answers. That would be because everything affects everything else. But if you think it needs to be added (and it's actually not an unreasonable request), I can add a sentence or two. Will get on that. § Lingzhi (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • added a footnote about causes of extended bull market § Lingzhi (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Background: The sentence beginning In late 1985 and early 1986 is uncited
  • I'm working under the assumption that that sentence can safely be deleted. So I did. § Lingzhi (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Japan: distinctive institutional characteristics? - dont like either distinctive or characteristics
• Overall very good. More later. Ceoil (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The "see also" sect should be converted to a shot "depictions" or "in media" para. Ceoil (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Have a concern about slippage re POV and judgmental language, eg still had not been settled, and later the Fed would be forced to raise interest rates yet again. Have edited these, but from a short scan of a large article, they do indicate a tone I am not usually comfortable with, regardless of affiliation. I suggest that this kind of editorial voice is removed as far as possible. I thi k you have all the hard work done in establishing facts, but need to better convery the sequence. Ceoil (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, I have not had time to read all of your edits. But "his negative news regarding the trade deficit created an anticipation that the Fed would be forced to raise interest rates yet again" is not PV, full stop. Every source says it was bad trade news, full stop. Sorry to say that I am growing a little concerned that you are removing useful explanatory text from the article. § Lingzhi (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wont offend me by reverting, although "yet again" could be better phrased. I'm *leaning support* here btw, so will stop editing directly and restrict to griping here (on minor points I have to say) Ceoil (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read through again last night and this morning, and made only trivial edits. The article is very informed and well sourced and clearly put, no small feat considering an earlier concern below was "too difficult in places" (which I never found). There has been a huge effort since my initial comments, and I find it flows much better now. Gripping. Support. Ceoil (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC) @Ceoil: Thank you very much, sir! § Lingzhi (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Femke[edit]

Thanks for working on such an important topic! I don't have time for a full review, so will focus only on the lead.

• It is too difficult in places. The third paragraph in particular has jargon that needs to be explained or omitted. Words like implied volatility, financial options and volatility smile shouldn't be in the lead without explanation for an article like this with an expected wide audience (WP:ONEDOWN/WP:EXPLAINLEAD)
• I believe all indices in the infobox are US-specific? If so, is there a way to reduce that bias? Is the Federal Reserve the US federal reserve?
• Opinions may differ, but I believe the first paragraph is a bit too numbers and statistics-heavy.
• It seems to be missing the trigger / causes of the crash. That section hasn't been summarised in the lead. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Femke (alt) or Femke, thank you for your review. It's most helpful.

• The third paragraph in the lead, about the volatility smile, is definitely inside baseball for economists anyway, so I relocated it to the Aftermath section. That single edit removes the lion's share of the offending jargon in the lead, IMHO. The only jargon-ish thing left might be market liquidity, but leaving it there might be educational, IMHO. Is that enough for you?
• I would be quite happy deleting the entire infobox, but I have no desire to rekindle Ragnarok. But then if we start expanding its data snippets to include info from other countries... where does that process end? We run afoul of being accused of lack of comprehensiveness if we don't include everything. Would it be OK with you to include this sentence (roughly cribbed from body text): "Huge crash in stock prices in industrialized countries, starting in Asia, then spreading to Europe and the US"? Then to make room, we could delete one or two of the US-centric bullet points. Does that sound like a solution? [That sentence does look a little long for an infobox, but what can ya do...]
• I dunno, I think numbers are pretty important to the article. It's all about quantities. I dunno if cutting out some numbers would be beneficial...
• OK, since the volatility smile paragraph has been moved out of the lead, I can try to come up with a very, very, very brief summary of causes... or come to think of it, maybe not even a summary, just a list of the various subtopics of the causes section...? I made a new paragraph (second paragraph, now) in the Lead about possible causes.. it still has jargon, but gosh, I think the jargon is both unavoidable and educational... Does that sound OK?
• Let me know what you think. Thanks. § Lingzhi (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brill. I had feared more jargon would enter when I asked for causes. I think Louvre Accord and portfolio hedging are the two that are definitely too difficult. The suggestion for the infobox is okay, but it may be difficult to read on small screens? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • —Femke, I've been thinking about this comment for a while. I don't see how we could delete those terms. This article is all about those terms. Instead of "Louvre accord" we could use "international monetary coordination" (perhaps), but is that really any easier? And I really don't know any synonym for portfolio hedging. The point is, this article is a challenging read, and there ain't no easy way to do a hard thing. § Lingzhi (talk)
      • international monetary coordination would be a good explanation of Louvre accord. For portfolio insurance hedging, you may want to get some inspiration at Britannica, they manage to avoid such jargon (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Black-Monday). No idea if they mention that concept in their article, as I have no idea what it is. I'm reading this article as somebody who has spent around a short amount of time on a research project on financial instability, which means I will likely have a better understanding of the topic than your typical reader. Many of our readers will not even understand words like 'monetary policy', 'market liquidity' and of course some of the jargon in the infobox which may disappear when you've globalised it (NYSE). I see that as jargon that can be mostly excused by the difficulty of the topic area, excluding maybe 25% of our readers. I guess 'portfolio insurance hedging' excludes around 90%. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • —Femke.. I tried keeping the terms (because they will be repeated a lot later) but adding explanations... does that help? § Lingzhi (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

          There is just one more term (index futures) that needs removing or explaining before I would say the lead is too difficult for my taste, rather than too difficult. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

          • @Femke: I can't think of a way to explain that term that wouldn't be 1) wordy, and 2) a bit abstract anyhow. I think the wikilink to the relevant article may be the best we can do, even though it is admittedly less than ideal... § Lingzhi (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

I'll take a look over this shortly. (In the interests of full disclosure, note that the nominator asked if I would consider taking a look at this on my talk page, after I praised their script.) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also deposited US $20 million in a Swiss bank acct, but we won't discuss that. § Lingzhi (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You must have forgotten to have given me the account details... nudge, nudge. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No pages numbers for Bates and Seyhun for ref #1?
  • The abstract of Seyhun says "This paper shows that i) the Crash was a surprise to corporate insiders". I can provide the page of the abstract, if you wish. It was page 1363. Bates, strangely enough, suggests that a crash was expected from October 1986 to August 1987. And then a crash was not expected in the 2 months immediately prior to the actual crash. Again, this is from the abstract. The abstract is on page 1009. § Lingzhi (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No page number for ref #34, "Garcia 1989"?
  • Actually, this idea of "lender of last resort" is everywhere in the literature! I chose Garcia because the title of the article is actually "The lender of last resort in the wake of the crash". By that logic, the entire article, from first to last page, could be cited... However, I'm changing it to a source from a famous economist that has a strong quote... thanks! § Lingzhi (talk)
• Ref #36 cites "Garcia 1989, p. 159.", but in the long reference, the page range is given as 151–155.
  • Typo, thank you. Repaired. § Lingzhi (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Consistently use xxx–yyy for page ranges, per MOS:NUMRANGE. At the moment, a mix of xxx–yyy and xxx–yy are used.
  • I believe I have repaired these. Thanks. § Lingzhi (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, be consistent whether to use "pp. xx & yy" or "pp. xx, yy" The latter seems to be more commonly used, so I'd switch all to that if I were you.
  • I believe I have repaired these. Thanks. § Lingzhi (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No page number for ref #75, "Hunt 2009"?
  • Added, tks. § Lingzhi (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No page number for ref #88, "Rees 2007"?
  • There are two versions, print and online. Latter is easier to find and has no pagination... The cite is to p. 48 on the print version. Added. § Lingzhi (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref #102, no page numbers for either Leland?
  • Added, tks. § Lingzhi (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref #112, no page numbers for King & Wadhwani 1990?
  • Again, the entire article is written to prove this point. The point is in the title, "Transmission of volatility between stock markets". I suppose I could cite p. 26, the conclusion. § Lingzhi (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref #114, no page numbers for Goodhart 1988?
  • I cited Goodhart; the "contagion" thesis is most clearly stated and supported in another paper, [King, Mervyn A., and Sushil Wadhwani. "Transmission of volatility between stock markets." The Review of Financial Studies 3.1 (1990): 5-33.] That paper is already cited in this article; in fact it is cite 112 (discussed immediately above this), whereas this is 114... Goodhart's paper, which I cited here, actually deals with an issue that is closely related to and dovetails with "contagion", and it draws conclusions on that issue that are consistent with "contagion". However, where I became mildly confused here is that Goodhart spends a couple pages very approvingly summarizing King and Wadhwani, and repeats their conclusion. I somehow thought he was stating his own conclusions. Nope. So I will change this cite to King and Wadhwani, with page numbers. Thanks for pointing this out. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider providing archive links for some of the online-only sources.
  • Every time I run IABot, nothing happens. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent in the capitalisation of source titles. At the moment, some use title case and some use sentence case.
  • I'll change them all to title case. This may take a little while, but I promise I'll do it. Thanks... OK, I believe I have done them all... § Lingzhi (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Typically you provided ISSNs or OCLCs for newspaper sources, but you haven't for "Hinden, Stan (July 23, 1989)".
  • issn=0190-8286. Done. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Forsyth, Randall W. (October 20, 2017)" should be marked as requiring subscription. – This could also do with the work being wikilinked and an ISSN or OCLC provided for consistency with other sources.
  • Done, tks. § Lingzhi (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the article needs to mention Black Monday (TV series) in the prose for completeness, not just provide a See also link.
  • I disagree. Where we would put such text? Put it in the lede? No, someone will complain. Create an "In Popular Culture" section? No, an "In Popular Culture" section in this or any other article is warranted only when the "popular culture" topic notable in and of itself ( that is, the larger topic is notable in no small way because of its treatment in popular culture, such as Roswell or Area 51 or similar). I think the TV show is currently sitting precisely where it deserves to sit, and receiving precisely the amount of attention it deserves. § Lingzhi (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Judging whether this article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is difficult. There is a lot written on this subject, and quick searches on Google Books and JSTOR immediately bring up several sources not used in this article. But whether those sources add anything significant not already present in this article is hard to ascertain without a thorough reading of those sources, and a good understanding of this subject. What I can say is the article uses a variety of sources (although as is common for this site, predominantly US and generally English-language sources) from a range of good quality sources. I don't see any glaring omissions based on my searches and a brief review of sources which haven't been included.

Right, that wraps thing up for the moment, thanks to the spotchecks completed by Unlimitedlead (many thanks). Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Harrias: Thanks for the excellent review. I have changed many things. Most of them were minor, but I made a couple more substantial edits as well. I disagreed with your point about the TV show. Thanks! § Lingzhi (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the changes made, I'm happy that the article meets the relevant FA criteria for sourcing. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your help! § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 13:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Unlimitedlead- pass[edit]

I will take this on later today. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Random spotcheck on citation 7: verified.
• Hunt 2009 in citation 8 has no page number.
• Random spotcheck on citation 12 verified, but the sentence is word-for-word with the citation.
  • GAO report is Public Domain. § Lingzhi (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Random spotcheck on citation 14: verified "October 16, the DJIA fell 108.35 points", but not "to close at 2,246.74 on record volume".
• yes, the second half of this info seems to have been stranded from its original source during copy editing. Will repair. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Random spotcheck on citation 19: verified.
• Random spotcheck on citation 25: verified.
• Random spotcheck on citation 39: verified.
• Random spotcheck on citation 51: somewhat; the source indirectly says it but to me, this does not cut it. This is inching a little too close to WP:NOR for my liking.
  • Wikipedia: " It was down 23% in two days, roughly the same percentage that the NYSE dropped on the day of the crash. Stocks then continued to fall, albeit at a less precipitous rate, until reaching a trough in mid-November at 36% below its pre-crash peak."
  • SOURCE Page 53 "That day the Dow Jones crashed 23%... In London the FTSE 100...making an aggregate fall of 23% over two days... the decline continued at a slower pace...in mid-November... a 36% retreat from its peak... in mid-July"
  • Wikipedia: " Stocks did not begin to recover until 1989."
  • SOURCE page 54 "But in 1989 there was a significant recovery" § Lingzhi (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Random spotcheck on citation 69: sure.
• Random spotcheck on citation 72: again, quite iffy. The source does not directly back up the statement.
  • Wikipedia: "The finance industry was in a state of increasing optimism that approached euphoria"
  • SOURCE p. 72: The section heading on p. 72 is "Credit creation and euphoria". The text on same page says "... a spirit of optimism – in some cases amounting to hubris – pervaded the financial industry" § Lingzhi (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Random spotcheck on citation 123: sure.
• Random spotcheck on citation 125: fail- the quote in the article is similar but not the same as what is quoted in this article.
  • Wikipedia: "international currency coordination of any kind, including a target zone, is not possible."
  • SOURCE: OH! Look at the references. Ito published two very slightly different versions of this article: an online one in 2015, and a print version in 2016. Unfortunately BOTH version are listed (one right underneath the other) in the WP article references. The online version has: "Third, the Ministry of Finance learned that any international currency coordination, such as a target zone, is not possible". That is what you saw... The print version has "Third, the Ministry of Finance learned that international currency coordination of any kind, including a target zone, is not possible". The resolution to this problem is to 1) delete the online version from the references (it is the upper one), and 2) change the year of that cite. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The spotcheck, while somewhat okay, has several cases of uncertainty or just plain misuse. Apologies, but I am considering marking this spot check as failed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) @Unlimitedlead: Some comments above. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi.Renascence Alright, these responses are acceptable; my mistake for misunderstanding. The source spot check can pass, but I shall leave the deliberation of the FA status of the article to other editors. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this! I appreciate it... could you... maybe... put Pass in the section header of your comments... to make it a little more obvious? Sorry if this sounds stupid... § Lingzhi (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we are directly using text from a public domain source without attribution that is still a problem. I am not seeing a PD-attribution tag (iPad editing from hotspot in car, perhaps I missed it) nor is there inline attribution, if I am looking at the right source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Copyright & Terms of Use for the GAO. It's very brief and clear. I believe this article complies with all its provisions. If you disagree, please let me know. Thanks for looking into this... § Lingzhi (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest checking with Diannaa or another one of our copyright experts on this: WP:PLAGIARISM says:

• Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not the same thing.[2] Copyright infringement occurs when content is used in a way that violates a copyright holder's exclusive right. Giving credit does not mean the infringement has not occurred, so be careful not to quote so much of a non-free source that you violate the non-free content guideline.[3] Similarly, even though there is no copyright issue, public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source. For advice on how to avoid violating copyright on Wikipedia, see Copyright violation. For how to deal with copying material from free sources, such as public-domain sources, see below.

But she's the expert ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the help! § Lingzhi (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi, it's actually easy to add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template ((PD-notice)) after your citation. — Diannaa (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Cool, thanks! § Lingzhi (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Or another option would be just to save everyone a lot of trouble by paraphrasing. Will do. :-) ... Here, try this: "The same bullish trend propelled market indices around the world over this period, as the nineteen largest enjoyed an average rise of 296%.((sfn|General Accounting Office|1988|p=36)) § Lingzhi (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @SandyGeorgia: Please see above § Lingzhi (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @SandyGeorgia: @Femke: @Ceoil: Hope my replies (above) satisfy your questions. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. § Lingzhi (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Goodhart, Charles (August 17–19, 1988). The International Transmission of Asset Price Volatility. Symposium on Financial Market Volatility. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. pp. 79–120. Retrieved April 21, 2023. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGoodhart1988. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  yeah, that one was stranded by an earlier FAC point. I knew it was there; I was trying to decide whether to include it as a "See also" or something. I'll move it down into Further Reading. Thanks! § Lingzhi (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS matters[edit]

Partial MOS review moved to talk; nothing of concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Thanks again to Harrias and SandyGeorgia for their kind attention and excellent input! § Lingzhi (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to have a look. Not yet a full review.

• I can't seem to find where in the main article the expanded versions of some summary statements in the lead are. Could you point me to them with regards to:

" All of the twenty-three major world markets experienced a sharp decline in October 1987."

"When measured in United States dollars, eight markets declined by 20 to 29 percent, three by 30 to 39 percent (Malaysia, Mexico and New Zealand), and three by more than 40 percent (Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore)."

"The least affected was Austria (a fall of 11.4 percent) while the most affected was Hong Kong with a drop of 45.8 percent."

"Out of twenty-three major industrial countries, nineteen had a decline greater than 20 percent."

"Worldwide losses were estimated at US$1.71 trillion."

"The severity of the crash sparked fears of extended economic instability[6] or even a reprise of the Great Depression."

I was going to go on, but I can find very little of the lead which is a summary of the article. Could you help me out? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog. Thank you very much for your kind comments. I am, alas, in the very first day of final exams now, and have a stack of papers to grade. The stack will continue to grow until I slay it verily hip and thigh... I will try to reply as best as I can, in as timely manner as possible. I may be able to post a few remarks tonight or tomorrow. I will continue then after that, of course. Thank you for your time, trouble, and patience. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 11:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not personally in any great rush, although @FAC coordinators: may be, given that the nomination has already been open for eight weeks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Back again, and thanks again. There are 3 paragraphs in the lede. The 2nd and 3rd, it seems to me, directly reflect/summarize body text. The first does not (if you don't count a footnote). I spent perhaps 5 or 6 minutes looking in article history for where that info may have been removed from body text, but was unable to find anything. It seems very possible that I added it to the lede but never to body text. The obvious answer here is to move the lede text to the "Crash" section, leaving behind a sentence or at most two to summarize what is currently in the lede. This is especially doable since I have cited the relevant text. Would that be acceptable? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 11:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you Ling. If you think it works, do it and I'll go through the lead again. Bear in mind that the new text in the main body may, or may not, need summarising itself in the revised lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Gog the Mild: Now I see why I did that, ages ago: because "The Crash" subsection is under the US section. So I had to create an "International" section just now for that little summary, with other nations falling below that. And to forestall "Oppose, doesn't cover every country" (see Buidhe, above), I really did spend months and months researching this, and the countries I have already discussed were the ones I found meaningful stuff for. I just now spent another 5 or 6 minutes looking on Google Scholar for "canada black monday 1987", and the results are not promising. If you wish, I can try searching for all 23 countries listed in the Roll article (the source of the "23 countries" text), but I am not hopeful... § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care Ling. But unless the text in the lead is a summary of text in the main article, per MOS:LEAD, there is no point in my going any further with the review. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:It seems to me that it is. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Bear with me. I'll bump it to the top of my list of things to get round to. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. I appreciate your time & trouble. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox: "Stock markets crash worldwide, first in Asia, then Europe, then the US". Could you point me to where this is covered in the main article? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks... Added a sentence and a cite: " Stock markets crash worldwide, first in Asian markets other than Japan, then Europe, then the US, and finally Japan.((sfn|Roll|1988|p=19)) § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 01:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am away for a few days, plus I don't want to be picking up the same things as Dudley. So I shall wait until they have wrapped up and then continue. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• "and a crisis of confidence in the dollar created by uncertainties regarding the viability of the international monetary policy coordination of the Louvre Accord". I had to read this two or three times and go to the link to make sense of it. I suggest a separate sentence such as "In February 1987 leading industrial countries had agreed the Louvre Accord to attempt to stabilise international money markets, but doubts about the viability of the accord led to a crisis of confidence in the dollar, providing another explanation for Black Monday."
  • I attempted to re-word it. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 21:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "mportantly, however, the futures market opened on time across the board, with heavy selling." Why importantly? This needs explaining.
  • There was a major time gap between the reporting of different types of information... will clarify...
• "a general increase in margin calls; after the market's plunge, these were about 10 times their average size" 10 times what? This is unclear. Also it is usual to spell out small numbers, ten not 10, although I am not sure whether there is an MOS on this.
  • I don't follow you. "ten times their average size" means ten times their average size.

• I should have clarified. Grammatically, I would take this to mean that each margin call was ten times as large, but it seems more likely that you mean that the number of calls was ten times as large. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "and three times greater than the highest previous morning variation call." Again unclear. What is a "morning variation call"?
  • In this context, margin call and variation call are synonymous. Changed to "levels"
• "11 firms received margin calls from a single customer that exceeded that firm's adjusted net capital, sometimes by as much as two-to-one". A margin call is usually from a broker to an customer. Your wording implies that it was the other way round.
  • Ooops, the original text is "for a single customer" nice catch. changing the preposition

• I would like to clarify this, although the wording in the article may not need changing. You have "received" and the source "had". This implies from a third party. Does it mean that the firm had guaranteed a loan to one customer for an amount which exceeded its assets? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• MoS requires numbers at the beginning of sentences to be spelled out (Eleven not 11). Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "In general, counterparty risk increased as the creditworthiness of counterparties and the value of collateral posted became highly uncertain" This is too technical for the general reader.
• "which was then world's most heavily traded outside the U.S" the world's.
  • fixed, thanks § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 20:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• hi sorry, am traveling, have only cell phone for maybe 2 days. Will have access to computer then... sorry.

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.