I am disputing the recent downgrade by user:Don4of4 which was made despite objections from me and input from user:Aircorn. [1] My reasoning is as follows:
I find the both the method and rationale for this de-listing to be unsatisfactory and would appreciate some community input. Thanks!
— Keithbob • Talk • 23:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Don4of4 [Talk] 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Add comments here.
My role in this has been discussed above. A few clarifications for anyone who stumbles on this and is interested. I moved Keith's early post here to the talk page (found at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#Risk parity). I then became involved in the reassessment and left my opinion at that page. I have also been in touch with Don4of4 a few times suggesting that they close it, the last time was after Keith asked me to close the review on my talk page. As far as the process goes I don't think anything has been done wrong. Don4of4 as the opener of a individual reassessment is supposed to close it and I don't see a problem with Keith asking me to look into it when he thought Don had abandoned the review. It is now at a community reassessment where it should go if editors disagree with an individual one. Unfortunately this place is pretty quiet so I doubt we will get a lot of comments, but you never know. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The main issue appears to be broadness in relation to the 2008 financial crisis. I have had a look through Google and found this which says "Risk-parity funds held up relatively well during the financial crisis". The following may also be useful [7]. I also looked in the first three books with previews that showed up in a google books search for "2008 financial crisis" [8]. I searched for risk parity in them, but found nothing [9] [10] [11]. I think some better evidence is needed to justify failing this due to it missing information on the 2008 financial crisis. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Aircorn and thanks for taking the time to participate here. My research has turned up about the same results as you. However, in the spirit of cooperation, I have created a Performance section and added the WSJ quote that you have unearthed. If Don4of4 has some additional sources then I'd be happy to add information from those sources as well. I"ve also added a sentence about AQR launching a risk parity mutual fund in 2012. I could not find evidence of any other such funds but if anyone can point me to more RS's than I can add more info. I would like the article to be as comprehensive as possible. Meantime I'd like to point out that the 2008 financial crisis is already mentioned in three additional places in the article --which I'm listing below for everyone's convenience.
Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I am disputing the recent downgrade by user:Don4of4 which was made despite objections from me and input from user:Aircorn. [1] My reasoning is as follows:
I find the both the method and rationale for this de-listing to be unsatisfactory and would appreciate some community input. Thanks!
— Keithbob • Talk • 23:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Don4of4 [Talk] 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Add comments here.
My role in this has been discussed above. A few clarifications for anyone who stumbles on this and is interested. I moved Keith's early post here to the talk page (found at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#Risk parity). I then became involved in the reassessment and left my opinion at that page. I have also been in touch with Don4of4 a few times suggesting that they close it, the last time was after Keith asked me to close the review on my talk page. As far as the process goes I don't think anything has been done wrong. Don4of4 as the opener of a individual reassessment is supposed to close it and I don't see a problem with Keith asking me to look into it when he thought Don had abandoned the review. It is now at a community reassessment where it should go if editors disagree with an individual one. Unfortunately this place is pretty quiet so I doubt we will get a lot of comments, but you never know. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The main issue appears to be broadness in relation to the 2008 financial crisis. I have had a look through Google and found this which says "Risk-parity funds held up relatively well during the financial crisis". The following may also be useful [7]. I also looked in the first three books with previews that showed up in a google books search for "2008 financial crisis" [8]. I searched for risk parity in them, but found nothing [9] [10] [11]. I think some better evidence is needed to justify failing this due to it missing information on the 2008 financial crisis. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Aircorn and thanks for taking the time to participate here. My research has turned up about the same results as you. However, in the spirit of cooperation, I have created a Performance section and added the WSJ quote that you have unearthed. If Don4of4 has some additional sources then I'd be happy to add information from those sources as well. I"ve also added a sentence about AQR launching a risk parity mutual fund in 2012. I could not find evidence of any other such funds but if anyone can point me to more RS's than I can add more info. I would like the article to be as comprehensive as possible. Meantime I'd like to point out that the 2008 financial crisis is already mentioned in three additional places in the article --which I'm listing below for everyone's convenience.
Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)