Talk:Risk parity/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk • contribs • count) 12:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Okay looking article

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I think it should be written "1950s" not "1950's", the same with other decades; there should be a space after a citation is used ("and then in Europe.[16][22]USA investors"), and a space after a year in brackets is used: "Clifton Group(2011)"; and why are commas like this “ and not like this "? "The Financial crisis of 2007-2010" should possibly be changed to "Late-2000s financial crisis", or have it linked to that but reading the same, otherwise why is the "F" capitalized in "Financial"?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
no problems here
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
no problems here
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
no problems here
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
no problems here
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
no problems here
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~I'm going to put this on hold for now, until the issues are cleared~~ it's a pass