Talk:FinMkt

FinMkt was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 7, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
June 25, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New York City

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Questionable refs and notability

I just removed the Forbes contributor blogs. Most of the content here is sourced to Crowdfund Insider, which is a barely-edited blog. Is there any actual evidence of notability in mainstream sources? - David Gerard (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No fixes in nine months? I've just tagged the bad sources, and it's most of them. Looking to remove them in a week or so - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just culled all the bad sources and primary-sourced puffery - David Gerard (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crowdnetic/GA1. 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)[reply]

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

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)

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
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Will leave this on hold until all are addressed - please let me know if you have any questions JAGUAR 23:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: 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)[reply]

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

JAGUAR 16:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar and Meatsgains: 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)[reply]

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. JAGUAR 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]