Talk:G7 says "all available tools" will be used to solve crisis

Reviews

Reviewing... - Amgine | ^t 02:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops; sorry; I kept adding stuff; I thought I was the only one here. I am done now anyway. --SVTCobra 02:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

np...

Revision 707984 of this article has been reviewed by Amgine (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: fail Comments by reviewer: This article has excellent information, but is poorly organized. The lede is over-wikified. The origination point of the current financial crisis directly is Aug. 2007, and world financial markets have been in turmoil from that date. The backgrounder does not discuss this. Banks in the USA, Iceland (most dramatically, with 100% of Icelandic banks now failed) Brazil, and others have failed, but only EU is mentioned. The article may have npov issues in this and other respects. - in addition to Europe - have failed. Do we wish to send wikinews readers to en.wp news coverage? - Amgine Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 707984 of this article has been reviewed by Amgine (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: fail Comments by reviewer: This article has excellent information, but is poorly organized. The lede is over-wikified. The origination point of the current financial crisis directly is Aug. 2007, and world financial markets have been in turmoil from that date. The backgrounder does not discuss this. Banks in the USA, Iceland (most dramatically, with 100% of Icelandic banks now failed) Brazil, and others have failed, but only EU is mentioned. The article may have npov issues in this and other respects. - in addition to Europe - have failed. Do we wish to send wikinews readers to en.wp news coverage? - Amgine Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Excellent start, but has a few things to work on. May I help out? - Amgine | ^t 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the G-7 won't be helping Brazil and Icelandic banks since they are not members. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Take decisive action and use all available tools to support systemically important financial institutions and prevent their failure." Brazil and Iceland are rather relevant as "important financial institutions". Just ask the UK and the USA. - Amgine | ^t 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No money from any G-7 government will be used to prevent failures of banks in other countries. Look at Iceland, no country wants to give them money. They have to go though the IMF. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to fix anything you find a problem with. The "backgrounder" is entirely lifted from the Wikipedia article listed in the sources. You would have to find your own sources if you want to start at August 2007 for the turmoil. Reading about Countrywide Financial could help here. However, I am surprised that there was a "fail" for what? too many wikilinks? Also, I don't see what you are trying to say in your comment about Iceland and Brazil. Neither is a G7 country. Cheers and happy editing.--SVTCobra 03:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would have approved of this article. With regards to excessive wikilinking, I took some (it's true that "finance ministers" and "central banks" shouldn't be wikilinked, but that's no reason to fail an article.) Secondly, I believe it not true that it's EU-US centred: "de-leveraging of world assets". This covers the wordlwide aspect, if you wish... There is no reason to add Iceland no Brazil, because adding them would fail to introduce other significant countries which are facing problems (Argentina and Mexico intervened to prevent a massive devaluation of their currencies, New Zealand has entered in recession...). They are two of many, in my view. Overall, I really think it should be approved. - Julián ^(reply) 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The G7 are not going to address issues only in G7 nations. They never said that. They said they're going to address any internationally important financial institute. You can pretty much guarantee this statement was aimed at Iceland, which also isn't a G7 member.

The fail was for the sheer number of style issues, and the possible npov issues (this is pretty exclusive to G7, but more specifically euroview.) - Amgine | ^t 03:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is not an attempt to summarize every event in the global crisis. It is merely to be a simple straight-forward article about the G7 meeting and what they said. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did you read they were going to do that? They are basically worried about their countries. They may make a statement on the need to work with countries and the IMF, but trust me there is no action or plan on working on non-G7 financial institutes. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at all the articles about Gordon Brown and Iceland. Bailing Iceland out *is* about the G7 financial institutes. Several UK cities will fail else. - Amgine | ^t 03:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And who said they were or were not going to handle specific issues? To be honest, I don't see anywhere in the article being said that G7 nations will only address their own issues/specific issues, nor does it say in the sources that Iceland's specific issue is going to be handled with more care than the rest... Everything else is just speculation. As for style issues, I'd be pleased if you could correct them if you feel there are any. Cheers, - Julián ^(reply) 03:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that someone other than Amgine do a review. This user is obviously stuck on something about Iceland and/or Brazil which does not pertain to the article. Julián fixed some style issues; if there are others please fix them.--SVTCobra 03:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

<curious look> I can't do another review of the article. I've edited it, and it would be unethical for me to consider reviewing it. - Amgine | ^t 03:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that this was your only edit, I think you are much too literal. But whatever, I am requesting a different review anyway. --SVTCobra 03:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What about an ignore all rules? Pretty much aplicable. - Julián ^(reply) 03:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The community has been most upset whenever I've IAR'd things in the past, so I don't do that. SVTCobra, when you made it clear you didn't appreciate the minor style changes, I avoided committing substantive changes. <shrug> It's an okay article, but it could have been a great article with more time and work. - Amgine | ^t 04:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I explicitly asked people to feel free to make style changes! Your whole Brazil/Iceland issue is not a style change. --SVTCobra 13:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision 708052 of this article has been reviewed by PatrickFlaherty (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Well done article. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 708052 of this article has been reviewed by PatrickFlaherty (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Well done article. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.