Talk:Risk parity/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk • contribs • count) 12:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Okay looking article

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I think it should be written "1950s" not "1950's", the same with other decades; there should be a space after a citation is used ("and then in Europe.[16][22]USA investors"), and a space after a year in brackets is used: "Clifton Group(2011)"; and why are commas like this “ and not like this "? "The Financial crisis of 2007-2010" should possibly be changed to "Late-2000s financial crisis", or have it linked to that but reading the same, otherwise why is the "F" capitalized in "Financial"?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   no problems here

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   no problems here

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   no problems here

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   no problems here

6. 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):

   no problems here

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm going to put this on hold for now, until the issues are cleared it's a pass