I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit a GAN for it. I've never submitted something for PR or GAN before, so I'm sure this will be an educational experience! Cheers, jp×g03:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Full of cryptocurrency cites, which the creator is edit-warring back in. These are regarded as "generally unreliable" at absolute best. Cannot possibly be of any quality with these in - David Gerard (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: Props for your assistance in copyediting the article after I linked it to you on your talk page; I'm not very familiar with the state of the art on RS policy for cryptocurrency (the topic changes too quickly for me to stay up-to-date). I think everything is fine now, though.
I did add back some of the stuff you removed -- some of it after finding alternate RS that supported it, and some of the other stuff was already covered by the initial RS for the article, so it could simply be cited to that instead (good eye on the Forbes contributor article / the Newsweek thing, which had slipped my mind entirely). I kept the link to the press release by Waves and the asset page on their site, because it seems to me to fall under WP:ABOUTSELF -- but I'd be fine with taking them back out, since everything sourced to those pages is also covered by other inline references from RS as well (BBC, CNN, CNBC). I've either removed or commented out anything that I've been unable to find a non-contested source for so far. I appreciate your candor -- is there anything in the article right now that lacks RS? jp×g18:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
