Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Minnesota

Minnesota

When I started working on Minnesota a year ago it was completely unreferenced and in pretty bad shape.[1] Since then a small team of dedicated users and I have gotten the article to GA status and we now believe the article is at or above the standards needed for FA. It has also undergone a successful peer review. I have also run the auto peer review script and completed any items that needed addressing. No other US states are good article or featured status, in fact most are in pretty bad off, so considering adopting your own state. I appreciate your feedback, I am more than willing to quickly address any concerns you may have that can prevent this from becoming a FA. Others that can address concerns: User:Appraiser, User:Kablammo, User:Gopher backer, User:Jonathunder. Self nomination. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments Looks like we're on an "M" spree here at FAC. Heh. Anyway, I skimmed through it and noticed mixed ref style used in "State symbols". Also, doesn't ref 85 cover what ref 86 refers to? Finally, I feel as if "State symbols" is one of those areas that should use a pretty template instead of a list. Is there one available? Gzkn 07:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a list as of last month, however I preferred the list format so the loon picture could be added. There is a template, its pretty ugly (ex:California ) and I am not sure it will accommodate the notes about. Do you have an example table style?-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - removed all refs but one, not sure how that bare link slipped in there. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm...I'll see if I can work up a pretty table for the state symbols section in my sandbox. I'll let you know... Gzkn 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Object~~ Refs need consistency, see 50 and 51 especially--use cite php/web format. Also, what does "Minnesota had 36 companies in the top 1000 U.S. publicly-traded companies by revenue in 2006." mean? Are these companies that have an office in MN, a national headquarters in MN, or what? Rlevse 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference is the Fortune Top 500 list, but they do the top 1000 for states see FAQ here: [2]. I'll fix those two refs. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 51 was a dupe and 50 has been fixed. I will check the refs for consistency, I won't move them all to cite web immediately but I will start working on it. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, let me know when you're done. Rlevse 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:Atomaton is converting all the refs to citeweb and is nearly done. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I just finished off a few he missed, it's now complete. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. Just one comment. The "See also" section links three articles. List of people is ok. The other two are not that significant. The article has this template {{tl:Minnesota}} at the end which provides all the quick links. So, is that section at all needed?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point -- as you mentioned, the first link is already in the footer and the second two aren't significant to the main article. I removed those links. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job. My only suggestion would be to try and get rid of a couple images. In certain places (between "Climate" and "Protected lands" as well as "Economy" and "Industry and commerce" and to a lesser extent in "Transportation") images are literally stacked on top of one another, and this at my modest screen resolution (1024x768). I think you can easily take out two or three pictures with no detriment to the article, since many of them are more "scenic" than necessary to illustrate a particular topic. Anyway, I wouldn't oppose on this qualm alone, I'll just ask that you give it some consideration. -- mattb @ 2006-11-28T17:38Z

Thanks! I have started a section on the balance of images on the Minnesota talk page and I will try and weed out any unnecessary images. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree that a few pictures removed would help, but otherwise well-written, well-researched, quality article. Deserving of FA status. Rever e ndG 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]