Talk:Signature Bank/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Bruxton (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to review this article. Please allow me 7-10 days to complete the review. Check back each day to see suggestions. Bruxton (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright check

Earwig picks up a direct copy of our article at a forum. In addition to Earwig I will check individual citations. Bruxton (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

A good summary of what is to come. It follows MOS:LEAD. Normally I prefer to avoid citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE but the 2 citations are likely needed. All of the information in the lead is later cited in the body.
Not necessarily a GA issue but I prefer stating US$60 billion per MOS:$ on the first occurrence and $60 billion thereafter. Bruxton (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment and expansion

The section is concise and thorough. The citations check out. Individually,

Citation 17 checks out
Citation 19 checks out Bruxton (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great helpful chart "Signature Bank stock price". Bruxton (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operations in the final years

The prose is clear and concise covering the main points without getting into too much detail. The table in this section is espeicially helpful.

Citation 30 checks out
Citation 3 checks out

Cryptocurrency

This section is excellent and all citations check out. It is a very thorough assessment of the bank's involvement and risk regarding cryptocurrency.

Controversies

A dead link and dead archive here. Consider replacing. Bruxton (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

A very interesting section. I learned a lot reading it.

Citations all check out Bruxton (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse

Have their been updates that allow us to know if this ever came true? "As of December 2022, 90 percent of $89 billion in bank deposits exceeded the maximum insured by the FDIC. All depositors are expected to be made whole"

Disposition of assets

Might not be a GA item, but usefull to read MOS:YEAR regarding the omission of year in the section.

The line: "On March 19, the FDIC announced ..." I think we the article would benefit from adding the year.
Also: "At the end of July, the FDIC". Bruxton (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Addressed all three above issues with rewording or year additions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Thank you for an excellent article which is both thorough and well written. It was a pleasure to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.