Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Risk parity/1

Risk parity

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep This has been open nearly three months so it is safe to say that no more comments are going to be foprthcoming. The major complaint is that it doesn't go into enough detail about 2008 financial crash. Myself and another editor have searched for information on this and included what we can. The original assessor has not supplied any further source that mention risk parity during the crash. Therefor it is assumed that this article currently meets the broadness criteria as defined by the WP:GACR AIRcorn (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original Complaint:

I am disputing the recent downgrade by user:Don4of4 which was made despite objections from me and input from user:Aircorn.[1] My reasoning is as follows:

As we all know GA articles are not FA's and can be improved and expanded. I have no objections to an additional paragraph or section about the way risk parity was influenced by the the 2008 financial collapse as requested by Don4of4 as long as there are reliable sources and the new section or paragraph is given appropriate weight per the preponderance of the sources. I mentioned this to Don4of4 but he/she did not point to any reliable sources to justify their personal opinion.
Don4of4 failed the article for "Images: appropriate use with suitable captions". His/her rationale was: "This topic demands more appropriate imagery to even be considered for GA status. The one image is good, but for the topic at hand, historical data should be included". I asked him: Are there any appropriate copyright free images available that further illustrate the major points in the article? If so I'd be happy to include them. Don4of4 responded: "There is plenty of potential for graphs or other simple visual aids. The apparent lack of free images isn't an excuse when images can be created"
I also told Don4of4 that I didn't understand why this couldn't have been addressed as a simple talk page discussion and a subsequent collaborative effort to expand and improve the article instead of a reassessment and the threat of a downgrade. He/she replied " I didn't feel like this article was close enough to GA requirements to dictate that courtesy."
Don4of4 created the reassessment on Jan 4, 2013 [2] and I responded the same day. However, Don4of4 disappeared from Wikipedia for 6weeks. He/she returned to WP on Feb 14, 2013 and responded to my comments [3] After checking the talk page for 6weeks for a response, I gave up and asked Aircorn to close the GA reassess I thought that was in progress but instead Don4of4 returned to WP on Feb 25, 2013 for the sole purpose of delisting Risk parity without any notification to me.[4]

I find ~~the~~ both the method and rationale for this de-listing to be unsatisfactory and would appreciate some community input. Thanks!

— Keithbob • Talk • 23:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Don4of4 for his/her comments and speedy response to this listing. For clarity I'd like to indicate that after 6 weeks of no response to my comments at the Risk Parity GA reassess page I checked Don4of4's contrib list and noticed he/she had not made any edits for past 6 weeks. I then posted a message at WP:GAR asking for assistance. [5]. Aircorn saw my post and removed it feeling it would confuse the bot and he/she then commented on the risk parity GA reassess page [6] and notified me and Don4of4 on our respective talk pages. I believe that Don4of4 was acting in good faith but at the same time I disagree with his/her reasons for downgrading the article. At any rate now that Don4of4 and I have aired our individual grievances I look forward to hearing the community's comments on the content of the article. Peace everyone!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer Response:

Response to personal attacks:

User:Keithbob did not respond to my comments on 14 February 2013 so I closed the review on 25 February 2013, leaving two weeks to respond. User:Keithbob is being utterly disingenuous about the sequence of events and my motivations.
It is not appropriate nor beneficial to patronize my failure to comment. - When another user notified me on my talk page I hopped right online. User:Keithbob accuses me of bad faith when he showed none, trying to go over my head through Aircorn.

Response to actual issue at hand:

The article simply does not meet the requirements of WP:GA?.

It flatly fails criteria 3 "Broad in its coverage." - This article is extremely weak in breadth of knowledge, and portrays laughable depth. Especially when compared to it's relative importance in modern investing.

Essential missing sections:

1. Role in the 2008 Economic Meltdown - Every modern fiance textbook will ramble for countless pages about this very topic and risk parity! Almost every book about the collapse will discuss risk parity. There is simply no excuse for a GA not having anything about it.

2. Mutual Funds - The fact that "Mutual Funds" doesn't even APPEAR in this article is reason enough for failure! These investment vehicles are poster children of the concept of risk parity.

This article is simply deficient in content. I applaud User:Keithbob's work on it, but it's not quite up to ready for GA status.

Don4of4 ^[Talk] 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

Add comments here.

My role in this has been discussed above. A few clarifications for anyone who stumbles on this and is interested. I moved Keith's early post here to the talk page (found at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#Risk parity). I then became involved in the reassessment and left my opinion at that page. I have also been in touch with Don4of4 a few times suggesting that they close it, the last time was after Keith asked me to close the review on my talk page. As far as the process goes I don't think anything has been done wrong. Don4of4 as the opener of a individual reassessment is supposed to close it and I don't see a problem with Keith asking me to look into it when he thought Don had abandoned the review. It is now at a community reassessment where it should go if editors disagree with an individual one. Unfortunately this place is pretty quiet so I doubt we will get a lot of comments, but you never know. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue appears to be broadness in relation to the 2008 financial crisis. I have had a look through Google and found this which says "Risk-parity funds held up relatively well during the financial crisis". The following may also be useful[7]. I also looked in the first three books with previews that showed up in a google books search for "2008 financial crisis"[8]. I searched for risk parity in them, but found nothing [9][10][11]. I think some better evidence is needed to justify failing this due to it missing information on the 2008 financial crisis. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? The lack of risk paritied funds was what caused the 2008 financial system collapse. As I previously asserted, any book will discuss credit default swaps and firms like Lehman Brothers. I shouldn't have to spoon feed this essential content to justify such a well known event. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 02:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have no trouble pointing to some sources then. AIRcorn (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aircorn and thanks for taking the time to participate here. My research has turned up about the same results as you. However, in the spirit of cooperation, I have created a Performance section and added the WSJ quote that you have unearthed. If Don4of4 has some additional sources then I'd be happy to add information from those sources as well. I"ve also added a sentence about AQR launching a risk parity mutual fund in 2012. I could not find evidence of any other such funds but if anyone can point me to more RS's than I can add more info. I would like the article to be as comprehensive as possible. Meantime I'd like to point out that the 2008 financial crisis is already mentioned in three additional places in the article --which I'm listing below for everyone's convenience.

LEAD: Some portfolio managers have expressed skepticism about the practical application of the concept and its effectiveness in all types of market conditions but others point to its performance during the financial crisis of 2007-2008 as an indication of its potential success.
RECEPTION: The financial crisis of 2007-2010 was also hard on equity-heavy and Yale Model portfolios, but risk parity funds fared reasonably well.........................
RECEPTION: According to a 2011 article in Investments & Pensions Europe, the risk parity approach has "moderate risks" which include: communicating its value to boards of directors; unforeseen events like the 2008 market decline; market timing risks associated with implementation; the use of leverage and derivatives and basis risks associated with derivatives

Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since 6 weeks have passed and User:Don4of4 has not responded to any of the comments from other users, nor provided any sources to support his opinion as requested twice by Aircorn, I request that this reassessment be closed and that GA status be re-assigned to this article. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Beyoncé Knowles/1 is ready to be closed and has been open longer than this one. Maybe if that one was closed then this would be seen to sooner. AIRcorn (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]