Talk:Economy of Ohio

Fact Check

I tried verifying the first paragraph and couldn't validate the claim of being ranked #8 in 2008. In 2009, Ohio was ranked 39th overall. Also, the link to reference [7] leads to a log-in page that can be bypassed only with the month and date of the issue. (I couldn't find an article at the website that could substantiate the claim of #5 Ranking.) Ohio has 5 of the top 115 colleges ... and was ranked #8 by the same magazine in 2008 for best high schools.[6] Overall, the state's schools were ranked #5 in the country in 2010.[7] - DjKinDayton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.100.121.30 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Reference [7] was validated on 20100621 by DjKinDayton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.100.121.30 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review

• The only reason I didn't pass it was that single sources are used continuously throughout the article. This might not matter, but I'm still not sure. Good luck! §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've renominated the article at GAN - I glanced, and it needs a more thorough review than just "one source throughout" IMO. Hopefully someone will give it such, and I'll be happy to provide a 2nd opinion if they need it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination passes

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I know there were concerns in the FAC about the article having only one source for sources (the Ohio Department of Development), but I don't see it as a problem given that it's from a state government and appears to be reliable. Furthermore, there are sources (though not many of them proportionally to the ODoD ones) from other outlets as well, so it's hardly entirely a one-source article. Finally, this is GA, not FA. We're a little more flexible here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Kudos on the clever use of the state quarter for the lede image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck at FA now! I'll certainly vote for it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Status

Articles should not be given A-class ratings without undergoing review. WikiProject Ohio has an article review department here and WikiProject Economics has no formal review process but can be reached here. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Air Force

It's a little odd to call the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base an industry with headquarters in Dayton, OH. The Air Force, of course, has its headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington DC (or Arlington, Virginia, depending on how you think of it).. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed the wording for that section. It shouldn't have had the word "headquarters" in the section anyway. It was meant to list major employers for Ohio, not necessarily only headquarters. WPAFB is included in the list from the cited source, so it should be included. Thanks for pointing that out. It needed rewording. Texas141 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

German magazine Citation for Nanotek's Graphene-based ultracapacitor application

Footnote 150 cites a Dec 2010 article by Prachi Patel in the online mag Heise Online to support the statement that Nanotek contributed an important breakthrough in ultracap energy density. This German-language article appears in Heise-Online's 'Technology Review' section; as such it is a same-day translation of Patel's original article in Technology Review, the MIT journal of tech news. For the English WP article on Ohio Economy, the original Technology Review article seems more appropriate. Changing the citation from Heise-Online (http://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Elektroden-aus-zerknuelltem-Kohlenstoff-1149424.html) to Technology Review onlineBookerj (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

First woman to walk in space?

The info box says Dr. Kathryn Dwyer Sullivan, a resident of Columbus, was the first woman to walk in space. This directly contradicts information in the page List of female astronauts which states that Svetlana Savitskaya was the first woman to walk in space. Which is correct?--Wikishagnik (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

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

GA Reassessment

Economy of Ohio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted on issues with criteria 2 & 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A GA from 2008. There looks to be some uncited statements and sections. Along with that there may possibly be some areas that need updating. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delist for the reasons stated in the nomination. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.