Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of Ohio/archive1


 * 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 not promoted 16:00, 27 February 2008.

Economy of Ohio


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it meets the featured article criteria. It is well-written, well-reviewed, comprehensive, filled with verifiable claims with reliable sources, covers both the good and bad aspects of the economy, stable, styled, has images with appropriate captions, including graphs, and is of good length. Although the history log shows that I have made many changes, which I have, most of these are minor edits, and I do not have any intentions to make any major changes, except in response to this process. Regards,   Jd 027  chat  01:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can we get the list of footnotes condensed? A large number of them are repeats, they should be using so we don't have a lot of repetition. Also, your footnotes go after the punctuation. This was just a quick look, I can't do a long review as I'm leaving town for a week shortly, and won't be available to respond to anything past Wed. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I started the process. If anyone could chip in, that would be great, as it's very time-consuming. ^demon[omg plz] 03:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - not so bad if you have Dr PDA's reference editing thing installed. You might want to check I got them right - I used the PDF document number as a clue.  Article is half the size it was, as a result. Carré (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Very nice improvement to all who did it. Congrats! Ealdgyth | Talk 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, footnotes come after punctuation, not before. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strictly speakly, that's not quite accurate per the current guidelines. In Citing sources, the content states "Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it." If references are now required to go after punctuation for quality articles, the guideline content should probably be changed to reflect that status. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It also says they should normally follow punct, per Chicago MOS. Besides coming before punct looks yucky. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnotes do indeed look yucky that way, but an argument from yuck is of uncertain authority. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose—1a, 2a et al. Way below standard, I'm afraid. The first long, winding snake of a sentence gives reason to doubt. "The economy of Ohio, with Ohio being situated in the United States' Corn Belt and near the East Coast and being 600 miles within 60% of the US' and Canada's populations[1] make it an economic powerhouse in various industries, most notably the agriculture and food processing industries, while many historically strong industries, such as motor vehicle manufacturing, are steadily declining in favor of new and emerging sectors." There's that old "with" as a connector—rather clumsy. So is "being", twice. "Make" is ungrammatical. "Various" is barely encyclopedic (think why ...). US' is a very strange possessive form. And does it mean within 60% of Canadians and 60% of Americans, or some kind of conglomerated population? Industries ... industries. Caption: so about half of employment is by the government, are we to assume? Soviet Russia meets 21st-century America. MOS breaches abound. Sloppy expressions like "regions of Ohio greatly affect incomes". Hello? Tony   (talk)  14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was able to address the lead section, and the sloppy expression mentioned. I'll try right now to address some of the MOS issues addressed.  Jd 027  chat 23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was able to do some more reformatting and to rephrase some awkward phrasing, and some MOS problems.  Jd 027  chat 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "US'", while considered a bit odd, is correct, as words or abbreviations with more than one syllables and ending in 's' generally end in only an apostrophe, though I'd be glad to change it if it is established otherwise.  Jd 027  chat 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * of automobile production in the United States would be better; simple US as an attributive might do; there's no need to be odd. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed a few days ago, but I'm noting here now.  Jd 027  chat 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.