Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 19:11, 24 October 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): JayHenry (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive1
- Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
I have never nominated an FLC before, so apologies if I'm unfamiliar with unstated criteria. It's comprehensive, stable, etc., I think. I'll work during the course of the candidacy to address any issues of which I was unaware. I think this is an authoritative list of recessions in the United States. JayHenry (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is a list of recessions that have affected the United States" Featured lists no longer start this way; see recently promoted lists for more engaging starts. For example, you might start with "In the United States, a recession is defined as..." Dabomb87 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll study some other articles and rewrite the lead. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Diaa
|
---|
Review by --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Oppose do far:
The link in ref 8 is dead.Some rows in the second table need inline citations (marked by {{cn}} tags).
I fixed dashes myself. Ruslik_Zero 12:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can the reviewers please state what has been completed and what still needs to be done?
- The list has been significantly expanded. Due to this the whole review should be restarted and everything checked. The three sections need more prose and explanation of why it has been split in these sections (in the list). Sometimes the acronym mos. is used while other times months is spelled out. The list is near feature quality but many changes are still to be done. If the nominator wishes to proceed with the nomination I would continue to review this list. Otherwise the nomination should be delisted.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still chipping away. Give me just a few more days and I'll have the refs cleaned up, intro text to each section, and further information about the recessions, and a few of the other things mentioned above. Above you suggested adding images to the right of the table. I like this idea, but I'm not sure how to do this without significantly scrunching the table. With the additional columns it's already pretty scrunchy on my monitor. --JayHenry (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you going to replace the last {{cn}} with a ref? Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, definitely. And going to add more on those that are briefly explained. --JayHenry (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you finish the expansion please indicate so here.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for your patience with me through this process. I have tentatively completed the descriptions of the characteristics in the tables. I'm still going to work on the lead and the intro to each section a bit. But the table themselves are ready to be reviewed, and I can address any that you feel are too thin. --JayHenry (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you finish the expansion please indicate so here.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, definitely. And going to add more on those that are briefly explained. --JayHenry (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you going to replace the last {{cn}} with a ref? Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still chipping away. Give me just a few more days and I'll have the refs cleaned up, intro text to each section, and further information about the recessions, and a few of the other things mentioned above. Above you suggested adding images to the right of the table. I like this idea, but I'm not sure how to do this without significantly scrunching the table. With the additional columns it's already pretty scrunchy on my monitor. --JayHenry (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The date range for the most recent recession reads "Dec 2007 – ?" The question mark signifies that the recession has ended, but the month and year in which it ended is not known. Is this the case? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the text explains: "By July 2009 a growing number of economists believed that the recession may have ended; as is often the case at the end of a recession, unemployment is still rising.[48] The National Bureau of Economic Research will not make this official determination for some time." Is some further indication of this necessary? One option would be one of those special footnotes. --JayHenry (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's fine as is. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Support. Tony (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Not well written.[reply]
- Why is "United States" linked?
- An editor felt it was a good way to link Economy of the United States. If this is against some guideline then feel free to remove. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comma required, but why not put "However," first?: "(NBER), however and the NBER defines". It's hard to work out the contrast—why not "The NBER's definition of a recession is different from ..."
- Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see "Ellipsis" in the MoS for the correct spacing.
- Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "government policy and government spending"—remove one word. Same with "trade".
- Rewritten. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of the general "trends" in the banking industry, can it be more specific? At a guess, it's "leverage", or "debt to something ratio". I've heard it expressed neatly.
- Rewritten. It's not any one thing. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "have affected economies".
- Rewritten. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So these 47 are under the NBER or the "popular" definition? This is all very woolly.
- This should be clearer now. Everything is NBER. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The average duration, from peak to trough, of the 11 recessions between 1945 and 2007 is 10 months."—"has been 10 months". Can you relocate the nested phrase ("from ...") so it's smoother.
- Rewrote. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "in the past" ... does this mean "previously"? (i.e., before 1945?)
- Clarified. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "determine recessions" ... what is "determine"?
- Clarified. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the MoS on spaced em dashes.
- I have complied with this completely arbitrary MOS stricture. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image of the USS is not well integrated into the text.
- Removed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the tense is wrong: "has provided".
- Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I see more I don't like, casting my eyes through the text. An independent copy-edit is required, preferably by someone who know a bit about economics.
- It seems like what's needed is a robot that's memorized the labyrinthine and mercurial MOS. Julian has copy edited and I've given another write through the prose sections as well. I've begged for help from WikiProject Econ members but unfortunately the active members of the project all seem consumed in a mediation request. Hopefully this is approaching the standard set by List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Table: "mos" is awkward for "months". Why not say that all durations are given in months in the table, and give just the numerals (I see 46 months at one point, yet "yrs" is used too). It would thus be good to give more horizontal space to the final column by saving on the others. "Decline in trade and industrial activity": is that per annum? Or from the onset to the peak decline? Needs precision, probably in the text above. Is someone like Zarnowitz reliable? He's relied on a lot. What definition, what criteria, what analytical tools did he use in the 1860s? Surely it was primitive by comparison.
I have the uneasy feeling that this should be an article, not a "list". There seem to be no references to articles on the economic history of the US. Surely there isn't such a large gap in WP ...
If it's fixed up (quite a big job), it might be acceptable, but it needs to be couched in relation to other articles.
Altogether not comfortable. Tony (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After all the improvements and expansions done, I think the list comprehensively covers the topic and gives a really good overview of all recessions that happened. Through sorting the reader can see how the GDPs fell in contrast with other recessions. The list may not succeed in this FLC, since too much change has happened for one nomination. After a thorrow copyedit and some style fixes the list would meet the FL criteria. This is a list and not an article. I believe it should stay as a list. In my opinion, this a very unique list with a great potential to set new standards for Recessions overviews and general analysis.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Tony! I'll work on all these points this weekend and seek out a new copy editor. Zarnowitz died in February. I can see how that introductory paragraph could give the impression that he was a scholar of the 19th century, rather than a modern scholar who studied 19th century economics -- I will definitely clear this all up. Since this received so few early reviews (raelly only Diaa's), I'd ask the FLC directors' indulgence in keeping this open. There are two comments that leave me perplexed. I don't know what to make of the feeling that a List of recessions should be an article rather than a list. I also don't know what you mean that there are no references to articles on the economic history of the United States -- the list links to nearly 70 such articles. Is it possible you meant something that I'm not understanding by these comments? --JayHenry (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry too much about the length of the FLC; however, if it drags on for more than a week or a week and a half, we may need to close it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworked, clarified various points raised. Unfortunately years and months are not convertible in this case, so I cannot simply convert the roughly two year recessions to 24 month recessions because they are based on annual series. Surely you can see it wouldn't be appropriate to convert the monthly data into a number of days? If there are further objections please let me know. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry too much about the length of the FLC; however, if it drags on for more than a week or a week and a half, we may need to close it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Tony! I'll work on all these points this weekend and seek out a new copy editor. Zarnowitz died in February. I can see how that introductory paragraph could give the impression that he was a scholar of the 19th century, rather than a modern scholar who studied 19th century economics -- I will definitely clear this all up. Since this received so few early reviews (raelly only Diaa's), I'd ask the FLC directors' indulgence in keeping this open. There are two comments that leave me perplexed. I don't know what to make of the feeling that a List of recessions should be an article rather than a list. I also don't know what you mean that there are no references to articles on the economic history of the United States -- the list links to nearly 70 such articles. Is it possible you meant something that I'm not understanding by these comments? --JayHenry (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can help copyedit if needed. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status of the prose? Has Tony been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have thoroughly gone through the prose sections and Julian made some fixes as well. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might ask Tony to take a second look, then. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better; nice work, guys. And I notice a few nice specific links in the lead. Tony (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might ask Tony to take a second look, then. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have thoroughly gone through the prose sections and Julian made some fixes as well. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've fixed this. I've never dealt with alt text before (How has WP:CREEP not been marked historical yet? The featured content processes have flagrantly disregarded it for years with permanently creeping laws and regulations), so please let me know if I'm unfamiliar with some subordinate clause-provision. --JayHenry (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the alt text looks fine. I tweaked it a bit for brevity and verifiability, but you did a good job. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've fixed this. I've never dealt with alt text before (How has WP:CREEP not been marked historical yet? The featured content processes have flagrantly disregarded it for years with permanently creeping laws and regulations), so please let me know if I'm unfamiliar with some subordinate clause-provision. --JayHenry (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks to Matthewedwards for alerting me to this discussion. First glance indicates that this list is radically changed from the list I reviewed back in March 2008, and the concerns I expressed back then are no longer relevant. Thanks and congratulations to those who did the hard work to make it comprehensive and to add sourcing. I have not reviewed it beyond that first glance. --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now that most of the issues above have been addressed, and the prose seems to have greatly improved since this nomination was initiated. Nice work. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
|
Generally this looks good, considering this isn't exactly an easy list to do. I haven't looked at the prose in the table, but hopefully I'll get some time to come back to this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks RR. The list has been a lot of work but I'm pleased with how it's turning out! --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as all my comments have been resolved. Judging by your last edit summary I'm sorry if you feel frustrated, but we are all just trying to help. I don't think anyone is saying this is not a good list, we're just trying to make sure it ticks all the criteria boxes. Featured candidacies can be frustrating, but I think you have done a great job on this list, and I really do hope this will not be your first and last candidate. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from Tony1 (talk · contribs)
- Rejoinder: Jay, yes, if you can link it to "Economy of the US", sure, but best if it looks like a more specific link than merely to the huge US article. I see the link has been removed, anyway.
- I was agnostic about it, so I'm fine with it gone. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Spaced em dashes: not arbitrary MoS-cruft, but a reaction to editors' distaste at the look of them. One rarely see them in print. I see an en dash in 19th–century recessions, but a hyphen is required. It's just connecting two words, not expressing a range, an opposition, or a "to"/"from" relationship.
- Fixed that dash. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for being grumpy earlier. Believe we're all fixed up here now. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed that dash. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Recessions after World War II appear to be less severe than earlier recessions,...". The tense is a problem—too much you looking over your records now. Better "appear to have been".
- Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "1919 and 1945 and 22"—needs a comma.
- Fixed. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see more complaints about "mo.". Tony (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got rid of the abbreviations. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think this is a very nice list. I didn't review much of the prose, but everything else meets the criteria.—Chris!c/t 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a ref problem in "Late 2000s recession".
- Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref problem in Dates header.
- Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have the Time column in year and month. Like 1 year 3 months so the reader wouldn't have to calculate like what 50 months means.
- I don't really like the look of this and think it makes it a bit harder to compare, but okay. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Create key legends for your tables instead of filling the header. Like "Decline in business activity (peak to trough)" just have "Business activity" and explain it in a key.
- Like this? --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I meant like this, but this works too.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like this? --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could u find a better picture for the lead that could encompass (be about) the whole list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A single picture that is about all the US recessions since 1790? I'm open to suggestions but nothing is jumping out at me here. Maybe like a collage of breadlines, a threadbare Christmas, a collapsed and rusted crane, a bank run, hobos, a broker jumping out a window, a crashing Dow line, farm implements sinking in the mud, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.