Talk:Bridgewater Associates/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 20:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Prose is not accessible to general readers in many places. For example: "The history of Bridgewater Associates is characterized by growth and the pioneering of industry strategies such as: currency overlay in the 1980s, the separation of alpha and beta strategies in the early 1990s,[9] the creation of absolute return products, like the global alpha fund in 1991 and the All Weather, risk parity product in 1996." This is traxoline that can only be understood by people who specialize in the financial sector. Some of this can be solved by careful wikilinking of jargon, but I think it also needs to be rewritten to accommodate general readers. Several instances of citation overkill. Any time there's more than two references attached to a sentence, it's not useful to a reader, because they won't know which reference goes with which fact. Use citation bundling, or judiciously choose which reference is the best to support the statement(s). Combine one and two sentence paragraphs together to make the article flow better. The history section especially suffers from two sentence "paragraphs", making it a choppy read.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Fix the citation overkill problem, mentioned above. Also, some references are used more than once (#61 and #62, for example). Just write one citation, but use the ref tag twice. Anytime a quote or even a quoted blurb is used, be sure to provide a reference. In the "Daily Observations" section, the first sentence says that the paper is described as "packed with charts and data" but the end of the sentence provides no ref for where that quote came from. Also, why is "packed with charts and data" important to include anyway? Is that a criticism, and accolade, or merely representative of the what the paper is?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The "1991-present" section reads like a timeline list, rather than a narrative or prose. It would be better to construct a narrative. Perhaps a sidebar with a brief timeline would be appropriate for the future, however (not required here). Not sure why the "Corporate culture" section needs a special subsection on "Transparency..." Just combine the subsection into the "Corporate culture" section. The article mentions that the New Yorker called the company "weird", but it would be nice to see a better emphasis on the particular "weird" practices and other criticisms. I see some of that is mentioned, but not much elaboration.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article has an overall positive tone about the company, and it comes off as a little like an advertisement. I'm not sure the best way to tackle this, but I think replacing a lot of the corporate-speak and financial sector jargon with terminology and phrasing friendlier to general readers will help. Sentences like, "The fund seeks to provide, "high, risk adjusted returns" during all market conditions and at least match the return of the overall market" is an example of what I'm talking about. This reads like it came straight from the company's prospectus. Again, I'm not sure how to improve this...I just know it puts me off as a general reader, when this crops up throughout the article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems with stability.

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):

   All images need alt-text. Additionally, I don't think the first panorama image (Connecticut headquarters) is necessary. It doesn't actually show anything except for trees, and the barest hint that there's a building in there, so I'm not convinced that it adds anything to the article. The second image is fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is a pretty good start, and not too far from GA status. I'm putting it on hold for 7 days for improvements to be made.

\

Hi Astrocog, thanks for a very comprehensive review and delineation of areas needing improvement. I know from experience that this can be time consuming for the reviewer. Here’s what I’ve done:

• Added wikilinks for financial terminology
• Reduced technical language
• Eliminated citation overkill
• Combine small paragraphs
• Edit History section for better flow
• Remove dup citations
• Remove and reduce “corporate speak” *Improved photo text

I like photos in articles as it makes them “look” more pleasing. While I agree that the wide photo doesn’t show the headquarters clearly it does illustrate the natural setting which is notable since most hedge funds are on Wall Street. However, if you think it should be removed, let me know and I’ll do it. Also let me know if there is more “corporate speak” that needs to be removed or changed. It is hard for me to step back and read text that I have written myself and have re-read dozens of times. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good improvements overall - certainly enough for GA status. While I disagree about the panoramic photo, I'm not passionate enough about it to fail the nomination because of it. Just keep in mind that if you ever work this up to a FA nomination, the reviewers will ding you on that and ask what exactly it is illustrating that makes it necessary. I think you've done a good job working this article into nice shape. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)