Talk:Global financial system/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I'll be reviewing this excellent article! This will be awesome :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do my review in a style with a main review covering the GA criteria, a prose review, and then a source review. See this review for an example.

Main Review[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	From a first look, the article is AOK. No blatant copyvios/grammar mistakes. More in-depth analysis will be covered in the prose review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All issues fixed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Issues fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Issues fixed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing is uncited in the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Aspects of the global financial system are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does not veer off topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Seems good and NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems like there has been no edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm a bit confused. Most of the pictures such as this image state that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years..." Does this mean that you need to add US copyright tags?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions look suitable
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues done and dusted. Thanks for being an awesome reviewer, and I apologize for being on a un-planned wikibreak. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images needing Public Domain in United States tag.

Done I have amended the applicable image files on Wikimedia Commons to include the Public Domain in the United States tag. John Shandy` • talk 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Review[edit]

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

Lead

Again, like I said in the table, (in point 1B) how about you try summarizing the lead to make it shorter? Also, according to this page you usually don't need to reference the lead.

If you look through the most recent 100 edits you'll see that a substantial effort has already been made to not only further summarize the lead, but to reduce the length of the article overall. From Aug. 17-20, I reduced the lead's readable prose by 1,957 characters. From Aug. 23-Sep. 6, I reduced the article's readable prose by about 5,073 characters (or 6.4%). Though the lead definitely has opportunities for improved conciseness, I do think the lead length is reasonable even though it may not be optimal. To be honest, I deem it a challenging matter of walking the line between the Manual of Style's length and summary standards. Since you're reading the article with a fresh set of eyes, I would certainly appreciate any particular suggestions you have for things that seem too detailed in the lead. That will help me better shorten it. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some copyediting to the lead section and I've reduced another ~501 characters from its readable prose. Reaching for a comparison, I grabbed today's featured article Biscayne National Park and measured the readable prose length of its lead by pasting it into a text editor (3887 characters, or 4.7% of total article), versus this article's current lead (3629 characters, or 3.6%). And GFS is longer than the Biscayne article by about ~18,600 characters. Regarding the citations in the lead, I removed one which I felt was unnecessary and I repositioned another to not disrupt the sentence. I believe those few remaining are appropriate and necessary however, as they strengthen support for the summarization of the system's key changes (and aims of those changes) over time. John Shandy` • talk 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of international financial architecture (1)

"The world experienced substantial changes prior to 1914 which created an environment favorable..."

Add a comma after 1914.

Done John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Approximately 25 million (or 70%) of these travelers migrated to the United States while most of the rest..."

Add a comma after while.

Done John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bank of England had to sustain an artificially high discount lending rate until 1908."

If it's needed, add a comma after rate.

Not done I don't think this would be proper, because "until 1908" is essential information for the sentence's meaning and it is at the end of the sentence. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"from the Panic of 1907, underpinning legislators' hesitance in trusting individual investors such as John Pierpont..."

Add a comma after investors?

Done John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of international financial architecture (1.2+1.3)

"In 1930, the Allied powers established the..."

Change "Allied powers" to "Allied Powers."

Not done I'm not sure one way is correct over the other. Encyclopedia Britannica does capitalize Powers, but Dictionary.com's lexicon does not capitalize powers. Wikipedia uses Axis powers for the opposition, and this was indeed what influenced my original decision not to capitalize the second word when I wrote it. I'm impartial to one or the other, but its present form is at least consistent. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Delegates intended the agreement to suffice while member states would negotiate..."

Add a comma after suffice if necessary.

Not done Commas should really only be used before while when it is used to mean something similar to whereas. This sentence is rather conveying that delegates intended the agreement to suffice during the interim in which their nations would negotiate the establishment of a formal trade organization. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of international financial architecture (1.4+1.5)

No issues.

Implications of globalized capital

"Because the balance of payments sums to zero, a current account surplus indicates a deficit in the asset accounts and vis versa."

Vice versa, not vis versa? What's your opinion?

Done John Shandy` • talk 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

No issues.

Future of the global financial system

"of disparate regulatory environments and beggar thy neighbour policies"

Is this article British/American? If it's American, use the following code. beggar thy neighbour|beggar thy neighbor (with brackets)

Done John Shandy` • talk 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review[edit]

Reference 9 and 57 are both dead. Maybe replace them/just get rid of them?

Done The URLs for references 9 and 57 have been updated to reflect location changes made by the Bank of England and the World Economic Forum. As well, I have updated the URL for reference 58 (also a World Economic Forum source). John Shandy` • talk 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've asked the Teahouse here whether or not you can do the page numbers superscripted.

I responded in that thread with my thoughts on this article's use of the {{rp}} template. John Shandy` • talk 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]