Talk:Banca Romana scandal

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Banca Romana scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919064513/http://www.bancaditalia.it/bancaditalia/storia/1936/dal1893_a_giolitti/LeggeBancaria1893.pdf to http://www.bancaditalia.it/bancaditalia/storia/1936/dal1893_a_giolitti/LeggeBancaria1893.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202085736/http://www.scandalobancaromana.com/serie.php to http://www.scandalobancaromana.com/serie.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Etzedek24 (talk · contribs) 18:33, 26 November 2017 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Per WP:MoS, references in a foreign language should be italicized. The article is not consistent on that front, specifically concerning the Banca Romana.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The Background section contains some citation requests. Based off of the importance to the rest of the article, these should be addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article hints at the scandal leading to the creation of a new banking law, but the language used to describe what I am understanding to be the Bank Act of August 1893 is rather vague. This should be included in the scope at the beginning of the article, and a good rule is to always be more specific than general.

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:

   The article is decent as it stands, but revisions did not occur in a timely manner.