Talk:FinMkt

Questionable refs and notability

I just removed the Forbes contributor blogs. Most of the content here is sourced to Crowdfund Insider, which is a barely-edited blog. Is there any actual evidence of notability in mainstream sources? - David Gerard (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

No fixes in nine months? I've just tagged the bad sources, and it's most of them. Looking to remove them in a week or so - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I just culled all the bad sources and primary-sourced puffery - David Gerard (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crowdnetic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "Portfolio Compass is “the market’s most sophisticated data collection and reporting tool and allows marketplace credit investors to collect, organize and produce detailed outputs for reporting and compliance purposes.”" - overquoting issue and unsourced. I recommend getting rid of this

   "YieldMaster and YieldMasterPro are cash-flow engines that offer custom control and permit investors to model periodic cash flows" - can you elaborate?

   I recommend merging the short sentences of the Other tools and applications section so it makes one paragraph

   Two sentences in the Conferences and webinars are unsourced.

   Far too many choppy sentences in the Partnerships section. Definitely merge them together to make a cohesive paragraph

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Will leave this on hold until all are addressed - please let me know if you have any questions JAGUAR  23:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thanks for the feedback - all requested changes have been made. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to bring this article up to GA status! Meatsgains (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've just read through it again and the article is looking a lot better. The prose is looking cleaner and I can see that this is comprehensive for the subject matter, so I'll pass this JAGUAR  16:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar and Meatsgains: why was this passed, despite criterion 6 not being met? It is quite obvious that a logo in the infobox is both possible and appropriate (meets WP:NFCC). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Criterion 6? This article doesn't have any images, nor is it a requirement for GA. If there is a non-free logo then it can be added at anytime. JAGUAR  17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The criterion is "Illustrated, if possible, by images" (my emphasis). If this company has a logo of any sort, then it is possible to illustrate this article with one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)