Talk:International monetary system/Archives/2015

Sentence damaged during complex edit

These comments are based on this version of the article (dated 01:23, 7 August 2015‎).

I have 3 comments (and, for some of them, some "ideas" for possible changes ["edits"] to fix things) regarding one sentence in the section International_monetary_systems#The_.22Revived_Bretton_Woods_system.22_identified_in_2003 of that version of the article. These comments all involve the last sentence of the first paragraph [quote]:

From 2004, This supposed "New Bretton Woods",^[19] as a "fiction", and called for the elimination of the structural imbalances that underlie it, viz, the chronic US current account deficit.^[20]

Comments:

1. For one thing, the sentence begins "From 2004, [...]" but it probably should say "From 2004 on,"; -- (right?)

   • My idea for this: add the word "on"

2. Also, after those two words, and a comma, the word "This" is capitalized; -- (Why?)

   • My idea for this: change the capital "T" to a lower case "t".

3. Also, after footnote number "[19]", it says << as a "fiction", >>; but the (long) sentence apparently got damaged during this edit, -- (the edit of "12:04, 18 February 2015").

   • The words << as a "fiction", >> used to make sense (before that edit), because they were preceded by "Dooley et al. began using the term Bretton Woods II to describe this de facto state of affairs, [...]". After that edit, the part that included "to describe" is missing! so the words << as a "fiction", >> do not "fit in" any more!
   • My idea for this: One might have to figure out the intent first! That might not be easy... (Any suggestions?)

Any comments? (before I proceed) - ? -

Note: If you wait, and comment after I have already changed this sentence, then the intention is, that comments will still be duly noted; but they might be a little late. Even before I change this sentence, some others might change the article (perhaps in other sentences); so, the (01:23, 7 August 2015‎) version of the article which these comments are based on -- this version of the article -- will still exist; it will still be available; but it might no longer be the 'latest' version of the article.

:-) 

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)