Talk:Banca Romana scandal/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Etzedek24 (talk · contribs) 18:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- The Background section contains some citation requests. Based off of the importance to the rest of the article, these should be addressed.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- The article hints at the scandal leading to the creation of a new banking law, but the language used to describe what I am understanding to be the Bank Act of August 1893 is rather vague. This should be included in the scope at the beginning of the article, and a good rule is to always be more specific than general.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- The article is decent as it stands, but revisions did not occur in a timely manner.
- Pass/Fail: