This article is within the scope of WikiProject Birmingham, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Birmingham 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.BirminghamWikipedia:WikiProject BirminghamTemplate:WikiProject BirminghamBirmingham articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
The entire products section is based on tbe bank's own press releases and, consequently, unduly promotional. Just to give the most egregious example: "giving organisations a greater level of spending control" - greater than what? Who compared those levels of spending control and concluded Unity Trust Bank's is greater? Oh right, themselves... An encyclopedia article is not a product directory. If no independent source has bothered to discuss the bank's product mix, it's apparently not significant information.
Another issue is the second half of the "history" section. That's entirely off-topic and discusses an unrelated organization that happens to share the name. I have no opinion on whether the 19th-century bank is notable; whether or not it is, information on an unrelated bank does not belong in the article on this bank. For these reasons I will again remove the content in question. Huon (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
