Talk:FinMkt/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR   16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "Portfolio Compass is “the market’s most sophisticated data collection and reporting tool and allows marketplace credit investors to collect, organize and produce detailed outputs for reporting and compliance purposes.”" - overquoting issue and unsourced. I recommend getting rid of this
 * "YieldMaster and YieldMasterPro are cash-flow engines that offer custom control and permit investors to model periodic cash flows" - can you elaborate?
 * I recommend merging the short sentences of the Other tools and applications section so it makes one paragraph
 * Two sentences in the Conferences and webinars are unsourced.
 * Far too many choppy sentences in the Partnerships section. Definitely merge them together to make a cohesive paragraph
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No original research found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Will leave this on hold until all are addressed - please let me know if you have any questions JAG  UAR   23:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback - all requested changes have been made. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to bring this article up to GA status! Meatsgains (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've just read through it again and the article is looking a lot better. The prose is looking cleaner and I can see that this is comprehensive for the subject matter, so I'll pass this  JAG  UAR   16:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * why was this passed, despite criterion 6 not being met? It is quite obvious that a logo in the infobox is both possible and appropriate (meets WP:NFCC). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Criterion 6? This article doesn't have any images, nor is it a requirement for GA. If there is a non-free logo then it can be added at anytime. JAG  UAR   17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The criterion is "Illustrated, if possible, by images" (my emphasis). If this company has a logo of any sort, then it is possible to illustrate this article with one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)