Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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].

List of recessions in the United States[edit]

Nominator(s): JayHenry (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Content
  1. The lead should be expanded, the second paragraph should be twice that big and generally Each paragraph needs more info. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will rewrite the lead. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why doesn't "Recession of 1833–34" have a "Time since previous recession" info?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add a clarifying note about this. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Please add a column showing how much the GDP was affected.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this would be inappropriate for a number of reasons. This data has only been compiled on a quarterly basis since WWII. Prior there was some annual data, but in the 19th century this annual data is extremely controversial. The data would not be comparable throughout the list, including it would inevitably take a side in a contentious dispute between historical macroeconomists, and I worry that only including GDP, and not other data, would give the article an inappropriate Keynesian bias. NBER does not even look primarily at GDP. While I understand that this sounds appealing, I don't believe it would be appropriate. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option, that just occurred to me, would be to break this list in half -- one for Pre-WWII and one for Post-WWII. The list of Post-WWII could contain the standardized data that people have come to expect when thinking about recessions, such as GDP, unemployment, housing, interest rates, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be the comprehensiveness part of the FLC process. Information like that shouldn't be skipped. If Pre-WWII isn't reliable then I suggest you go ahead with your idea. Create two sections one prior to WWII and one after. With each having a 1-2 paragraph lead giving an overview of the accuracy of the data and how the United States economy was affected during the time.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Each causes row should have at least four lines of information and not merely something like "This was a period of slight production growth, but declining commercial activity, declining industrial activity and deflation." --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could point me to the recessions that have too little information I will expand, but I disagree with an arbitrary minimum number of lines and don't see that this is required by the criteria. It's easy to forget in the aftermath of a severe recession, but many recessions were not actually very important. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do so after you finish all the other comments, since there is really much work other than expanding Causes now. Main thing is that you add references to the causes of these recessions.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Format
  1. Why do u link some recessions and others not? Link all and also include them in {{US recessions}} if they are truly recessions.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that every recession that's ever happened in the United States needs its own article. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You have to disambiguate Willey.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, good catch. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Because of the use of Months and years in "Time since previous recession" and "Duration" when sorting they don't sort correcting since 30 months appears larger than 10 years.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well spotted. Since 10 years =/= 120 months, I will have to fix this with a sortkey. Does FLC have a preferred method for sortkeys? --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No preferred format; whatever works is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. Every Book you reference should have a page name and an ISBN so that it would be Verifiable, which is very important so we can check whether all of this is true.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I've been away from this so long, I really should have cleaned up the references more. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Business Cycles" is used extensively but doesn't have the page numbers. Please reference each time through the Last name, date then Page number. For example "Zarnowitz 1996, p.XX" --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/life/secretary/embargo2.htm is a dead link.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You need to standardization the publication dates of references. For example, US style "July 12 2008" or GB style "12 July 2008" or ISO format "2008-07-12" . But never mix. I like the US style.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. You used http://www.nber.org/cycles.html throughout the article so I suggest making it a general reference like on this list List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Diego#References--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this suggestion -- I will follow it. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Please read through the previous nomination Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive1 it seems that it has some open suggestions. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Try creating a wide chart about the post world war II (1954-Today) GDP declines possibly in relation to World economy.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Put some images describing people's state (Hunger, Protests etc.) during the various recessions along the side of the tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be away for a while and might not reply quickly.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could u please do a wide chart about the GDP decline and growth of the different section please?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how this is relevant to the FLC, but I have done this. --JayHenry (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it gives an overview of the recessions during that time and a clear visualization of the relative declines. Thank you for doing it...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Since there were no national accounts, these dates were reconstructed well after the fact – these recessions were first dated in the 1920s." could u clarify that sentence?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewritten. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "studied business annals" spell out annals.
    Are you asking to explain what is meant by annals? If so, I've explained a bit. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. wikilink Cleveland Trust Company
    Done. Turns out it is now KeyBank. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Beginning in 1834, an index of business activity from the Cleveland Trust Company" I think "by" is more appropriate.
    Agreed. Changed. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "In a study of these early business cycles, two economists specializing in business cycles concluded: "In sum, the historical records decrease in both volume and reliability when pushed back into the past." why are these economists considered important?
    You're right, the quote is unnecessary. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "In 1791, Congress chartered..." why is that after "Beginning in 1834" ?
    The first two paragraphs are about the available data, the third paragraph is about the monetary policy at the time. I think this is more logical than a paragraph about available data, a paragraph about monetary policy, and another paragraph about data. I think subject matter is a more appropriate grouping than simple chronology. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In "Panic of 1797" you are mainly describing the British economy. Please concentrate on the effects and issues of the US.
    Okay, I've rewritten this a bit, but please keep in mind that this is but 20 years after independence and that scholars believe that this recession was caused by Britain's deflation. Note that the one source is even titled "Victims of an International Contagion". --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "1802–1804 recession" why did the foreign trade decline? Did the US sell weapons to any party ?
    Clarified. Just a typical war boom, peace adjustment cycle. I don't know about armaments, but think what's there is sufficient? --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "Embargoes end in May 1810, and a recovery gets underway." It was repealed as I understand it... and it was for not entering the Napoleonic Wars...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Rewritten. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "The United States entered a brief recession at the beginning of 1812. This recession was brief primarily because the United States soon focused its energies to the War of 1812, which began June 18, 1812." Is the war a reason for the stop of the recession ?
    Production almost always increases during war. Clarified that this is indeed the case here. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Shortly after the war ended on March 23, 1815, the United States entered a period of financial panic as bank notes rapidly depreciated." as bank notes were rapidly depreciated. Why were the depreciated?
    Explained. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "colonies and in 1827, the United States adopted a counter-prohibition." why Comma?
    Just a typo. Thanks. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "The Cleveland Trust Company Index, one of the only measures of economic activity in this era" you already mentioned this before.
    Thanks, fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. You say "This recession" a bit too much...
    Oh gosh you're right! I hadn't even realized! --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Always spell out "Annals"
    As above. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "The 20s up until the Great Depression " The 1920s
    Reworded. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Wikilink surplups and defict
    Done. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "See also: 1973 oil crisis, 1973–1974 stock market crash." make this into a sentence.
    And done. Thanks Diaa -- these were very helpful points! Let me know if I misunderstood about annals. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose do far:

  1. The link in ref 8 is dead.
  2. 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]

  • 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]

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.

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]

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]
  • 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]
  • 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)
  • I must say I've never seen "mos." used as an abbreviation for month. Isn't it usually "mth"?
    Okay, I'll change it. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you put references in the notes, for example the rule of thumb should be referenced. This requires a coding change and you go from <ref group="nb">Note</ref> to {{#tag:ref|Note<ref>Cite web/book/whatever</ref>|group="nb"}} Similarly you can use that work around for the other notes, which I notice are using a Havard style. Not sure if you were aware of this workaround, but if not it should now allow you to have a consistent referencing system.
    I wasn't aware of this. I'm happy to do it although it will take me a bit to figure out the syntax. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got this correct. --JayHenry (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made one slight fix, but yes that was good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The average duration of the 11 recessions between 1945 and 2007 is 10 months, compared to 18 months for recessions between 1919 and 1945 and 22 months for recessions from 1854 to 1919.[4] That citation does reference the 22 months for 1854–1919, but does not reference that 1919–1945 average, the average given is from 1945-2001, and there is no mention of this in the body of the article either.
    I'm sorry, but you've not read the table correctly or something. All of this is verified by the source cited. There was no recession between 2001 and 2007. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what you mean but the reference says: "1945-2001 (10 cycles) , 10 , 57 , 67 , 67", by extrapolating that to 2007 is WP:OR. There was one month of recession in 2007 and this might be enough to change the average. Also is an NBER release published after 2007 and they still break the period down to 1945-2001 not 1945-2007. As the most authoritative source on this, I cannot understand why you choose to do something different? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not different. Please read WP:OR. --JayHenry (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, don't worry about reading the policy. I went ahead and did it your way. Can we just end this thing yet? Honestly, if the conclusion is that this is still not on par with List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania then I'm not sure what else I can do. I'm really baffled and frustrated with all this. --JayHenry (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the data get older, their reliability worsens., needs rewording, not sure to what perhaps "...data gets older its reliability..." or maybe you can come up with something better
    The word data is plural. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be a UK/US thing as I read in data that "British usage now widely accepts treating data as singular in standard English,[5] including everyday newspaper usage[6] at least in non-scientific use.[7] UK scientific publishing still prefers treating it as a plural." Apologies, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20% of the young country's currency. don't like young here unless its referenced (which I don't see). Not sure you really have a young country, it's just not encyclopaedic.
    No source is needed to call the United States a young country in 1796. I refuse to add sources that lemons are yellow or that wheels are round. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, I still think it is bad prose, but seeing as I found examples of books that use it, I'll let this go. (p.s. yellow lemon? :p) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • fallen 3.9% as of the 2nd quarter of 2009, firstly do we have more recent data, and secondly I think, as it is prose, it should spelled out "second quarter".
    Yes, this is the most recent. Data for the third quarter are not available yet. The initial estimates will be released around the end of the month and I will update at that time. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the deepest since was the 10.8% rate..., you have deep recession, but do you have deep unemployment? Perhaps just "lowest since" for this one
    Changed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Free Banking Era to the Great Depression" table the "Decline in trade and industrial activity (peak to trough)" column sorts the dashed columns between the 8.8% and the 10%.
    Good catch, thanks! Not sure how that happened since I'd tested it pretty thoroughly! Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it the "Recession of 1937" or should it be "Recession of 1937–38" because I notice peak unemployment was in 1938. Similarly for Recession of 1953.
    In both of these cases I just went with the title of the associated article. It's not unusual for peak unemployment to occur once a recession is over, so this isn't really a factor in naming. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • "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]
  1. There is a ref problem in "Late 2000s recession".
    Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ref problem in Dates header.
    Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States/archive2&oldid=1141920797"