Talk:Risk parity/GA2

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

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.
 * Some time will be given for corrections to be made or my view disputed. Don4of4 [Talk] 05:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Don, Thanks for your interest in this article and your efforts to improve Wikipedia. As you know GA articles are not FA's and can be improved and expanded. I have no objections to an additional paragraph or section about the way risk parity was influenced by the the 2008 financial collapse as long as there are reliable sources and the new section or paragraph is given appropriate weight per the preponderance of the sources. So I'm happy to collaborate with you on this.
 * There are a couple of things however, that are a bit confusing to me and maybe you could help me understand:
 * Can you elaborate on the intended purpose of this Additional Notes list is on the article talk page? I assume that they are suggested sources for the section you'd like to add to the article but I'm not sure because I checked the three items that have URL's and #'s 3 and 6 don't mention risk parity (according to my PDF search function) and #20 is a dead URL link. Also none of the other 17 items list the words risk parity in the title and 15 of the 20 items are dated prior to 2008 and therefore would not have any info on the 2008 crisis.  So I'm not really sure what that list is about.
 * The list was automatically added. I believe it provides the content for the citations users already made.  Don4of4 [Talk] 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In your reassessment you have Failed the article for "Images: appropriate use with suitable captions" by saying "This topic demands more appropriate imagery to even be considered for GA status. The one image is good, but for the topic at hand, historical data should be included". Are there any appropriate copyright free images available that further illustrate the major points in the article? If so I'd be happy to include them. But I don't see how you can fail the article's image requirement. Since you've said yourself that the images presently in the article are useful and used appropriately.
 * There is only one image. There is plenty of potential for graphs or other simple visual aids.  The apparent lack of free images isn't an excuse when images can be created.  Don4of4 [Talk] 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mostly though I don't understand why this couldn't have been addressed as a simple talk page discussion and a subsequent collaborative effort to expand and improve the article instead of a reassessment and the threat of a downgrade. The current set up is conducive for conflict rather than collaboration but maybe I'm missing something.
 * I totally agree with you, but in the end I didn't feel like this article was close enough to GA requirements to dictate that courtesy.  Don4of4 [Talk] 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I look forward to working together, peace out! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Progress
Hi everyone. I come here after a note was placed at WP:GAR regarding this reassessment. I do run through these occasionally so probably would have commented here eventually. It has not had any activity for over a month now and it appears the initiator is on a Wikibreak. As to the requests above the image one is not really part of the GA criteria unless there are free ones available. The broadness criteria can be a bit tricky. It must over the main aspects of a topic, but that doesn't mean that it needs to cover them all or in great detail. I don't know enough about the topic to comment too much on this, but if you give a bit more detail on what is missing that would help. 11:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Community reassessment of Risk parity's GA status in progress
Please join the conversation here. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)