![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
In 2006 the region had 28,672 inhabitants,[Note 4] nearly half the total population of Charente-Maritime (47.9%).
The figure for half the population of Charente Maritime has to be incorrect. The department counts nearly half a million people and La Rochelle alone over 70,000.
suggest sentence reads:
In 2006 the region had 28,672 inhabitants,[Note 4] nearly half the total population of Charente-Maritime (47.9%).
80.254.147.52 ( talk) 15:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Yves Pacaud
Does anyone feel this entry's use of "notes" in ways not unlike listing your source, detracts from the already not very factual story, historically speaking. I can understand employing such annotation in the fashion of footnotes, to be used to cross reference specific subjects if this entry were the size of a single encyclopedic volume all by itself, however unless the entry is expected to grow a thousand times in length, I think this system of annotation does a great disservice to the articles clarity. Dirtclustit ( talk) 22:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
In 2006 the region had 28,672 inhabitants,[Note 4] nearly half the total population of Charente-Maritime (47.9%).
The figure for half the population of Charente Maritime has to be incorrect. The department counts nearly half a million people and La Rochelle alone over 70,000.
suggest sentence reads:
In 2006 the region had 28,672 inhabitants,[Note 4] nearly half the total population of Charente-Maritime (47.9%).
80.254.147.52 ( talk) 15:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Yves Pacaud
Does anyone feel this entry's use of "notes" in ways not unlike listing your source, detracts from the already not very factual story, historically speaking. I can understand employing such annotation in the fashion of footnotes, to be used to cross reference specific subjects if this entry were the size of a single encyclopedic volume all by itself, however unless the entry is expected to grow a thousand times in length, I think this system of annotation does a great disservice to the articles clarity. Dirtclustit ( talk) 22:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)