Talk:Jay Cooke & Company/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
lead has info not in the body and needs to mention the bankruptcy
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Some information on how the partners protected themselves as well as what hte bank did between Civil War and Panic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns * Lead should mention what caused the bank to collapse.

Explain in the body as well as the lead what a wire brokerage is. The lead just sumarizes the article, it shouldn't introduce information not in the body of the article.

What's a 5-20 bond?

How did the junior partners protect themselves?

Which Geisst work is referred to in footnote 5? (Geisst p. 54)?

~~What did the bank do after the Civil War and before the Panic?~~

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]