Talk:Banca Romana scandal/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Etzedek24 (talk · contribs) 18:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Per WP:MoS, references in a foreign language should be italicized. The article is not consistent on that front, specifically concerning the Banca Romana.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The Background section contains some citation requests. Based off of the importance to the rest of the article, these should be addressed.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article hints at the scandal leading to the creation of a new banking law, but the language used to describe what I am understanding to be the Bank Act of August 1893 is rather vague. This should be included in the scope at the beginning of the article, and a good rule is to always be more specific than general.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is decent as it stands, but revisions did not occur in a timely manner.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is decent as it stands, but revisions did not occur in a timely manner.