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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bruxton ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I am happy to review this article. Please allow me 7-10 days to complete the review. Check back each day to see suggestions.
Bruxton (
talk)
00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Earwig picks up a direct copy of our article at a forum. In addition to Earwig I will check individual citations. Bruxton ( talk) 01:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The section is concise and thorough. The citations check out. Individually,
The prose is clear and concise covering the main points without getting into too much detail. The table in this section is espeicially helpful.
This section is excellent and all citations check out. It is a very thorough assessment of the bank's involvement and risk regarding cryptocurrency.
A very interesting section. I learned a lot reading it.
Might not be a GA item, but usefull to read MOS:YEAR regarding the omission of year in the section.
@ Bruxton: Addressed all three above issues with rewording or year additions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Yes |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Yes |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Yes |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Yes |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bruxton ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I am happy to review this article. Please allow me 7-10 days to complete the review. Check back each day to see suggestions.
Bruxton (
talk)
00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Earwig picks up a direct copy of our article at a forum. In addition to Earwig I will check individual citations. Bruxton ( talk) 01:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The section is concise and thorough. The citations check out. Individually,
The prose is clear and concise covering the main points without getting into too much detail. The table in this section is espeicially helpful.
This section is excellent and all citations check out. It is a very thorough assessment of the bank's involvement and risk regarding cryptocurrency.
A very interesting section. I learned a lot reading it.
Might not be a GA item, but usefull to read MOS:YEAR regarding the omission of year in the section.
@ Bruxton: Addressed all three above issues with rewording or year additions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Yes |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Yes |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Yes |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Yes |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |