Talk:Banca Romana scandal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is decent as it stands, but revisions did not occur in a timely manner.