Draft talk:Better Finance

This draft 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

Organizations

This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization

European Union

This draft is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union

Johannes Maximilian's assessment

I think it's a good idea to share some thoughts on this revision:

The footnote placement is untypical of Germanic languages; I recommend adhering to WP:REFPUNCT;
Better Finance should be reduced to sentence case, cf. MOS:ALLCAPS;
The footnote density and placement is strongly indicative of WP:SYNTH, a method not allowed on Wikipedia;

No.	Source	Secondary?	Intellectually independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Additional thoughts?
1	European Parliament	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	A very useful source, but doesn't count towards notability.
2	Lobbyfacts	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Gives a basic overview of Better Finance, but doesn't indicate notability.
3	Financial Times	Yes	—	Yes	—	I cannot assess this source because of a paywall.
4	Financial Times	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	This FT article discusses ETFs, and briefly mentions Better Finance, and discusses/mentions their opinion on insurance retail savings products in France. While this is fine, it neither indicates notability, nor does it support the claim that Better Finance was created to amplify the voices of private investors.
5	Meetingmedia Group	No	No	Yes	Yes	A sponsored media piece. Doesn't indicate any notability.
6	European Union	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	An EU law. Better Finance is mentioned there. Okay. Neither does this contribute towards notability, nor is it a useful source in the first place.
7	Politico	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	The source briefly mentions the subject and explains why the EU Commission funds Better Finance. It doesn't, however, support the claim that To maintain its independence from the financial industry, BETTER FINANCE relies primarily on funding from the European Commission. It only says that Better Finance receives funding from the EU Commission.
8	Financial Times	Yes	No	Yes	No	The FT article discusses a BaFin investigation into the stock market. The information that can be derived from the source is that Better Finance's MD thinks the BaFin's decision is "good news". That's it. It doesn't support the claim that Better Finance work is focused mostly on the protection of retail investors.
9	EU Reporter	Yes	—	—	Yes	Possibly a notability-indicating source, however, I have serious doubts about the author, whose name is "EU Reporter Correspondent". While there is no very obvious giveaway that this is sponsored media, I still have serious doubts about this source.
10	Financial Times	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	This FT article discusses pension penury. It cites Better Finance, and briefly discusses a Better Finance study. Doesn't support the claim that Better Finance work is focused mostly on the protection (…) pension savers. I don't think that this indicates notability.
11	Bloomberg	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	The source discusses the informing of investors in cases of fund reclassifications, and it discusses Better Finance a lot. I think one can argue this is significant coverage. Not a proper source for the claim that Better Finance work is focused mostly on (…) topics such as digital finance.
12	Financial Times	Yes	No	Yes	No	This FT article discsusses EU fund regulation; it briefly quotes Better Finance's MD, but fails to discuss the subject. Not a proper source for the claim that Better Finance work is focused mostly on (…) topics such as digital finance and sustainable finance.
13	Stichting Investor Loss Compensation	No	No	Yes	No	Stichting Investor Loss Compensation is a foundation under Dutch law. It is not a citable source.
14	Reuters	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	The source discusses how Better Finance was set up to seek EUR1.5 bln in compensation for investors. While this source focusses, I argue that the main focus lies on Wirecard, as the source doesn't discuss Better Finance in significant detail. The source supports the claims that it's used for.
15	Funds Europe	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	The source discusses Better Finance's 12th annual pensions report. While the focus lies on that report, it does not lie on Better Finance itself. The source supports the claims that it's used for.

It's good to see that the cited sources are all reliable. However, only two thirds of the sources are secondary, and there is only little significant coverage. I think it's reasonable to assume that the sources potentially indicate the subject's notability, however, I would like to see a better source usage. The way the sources were used doesn't make a lot of sense – I get the impression that the draft's text is mostly independent of the sources, i.e., that the footnotes were "slapped on". In order to make a proper draft out of this, I recommend gathering, reading, and analysing sources, and then composing a text based on what the sources say. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]