Talk:Chemical Bank

Chemical Bank was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 31, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
October 15, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Finance & Investment Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opening comment

Do we really need the discussion of the Feb 1994 mistake?

—

Where does the name come from? Donald Hosek 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Bank

As I understand the statement, "Chemical Banking Corporation was founded in 1824 and was a bank holding company formed as parent to Chemical Bank," Chemical Bank must have existed prior to 1824. But on the disambiguation page for "Chemical Bank," there's no mention of it. D021317c 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. This is the common name of the bank and holding company and the primary use. I'll add a hat note to direct to the other bank. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Banking → Chemical Bank — The firm was officially known as Chemical Banking Corporation but was never referred to as Chemical Banking and the article name is awkward. As evidenced by the internal links, most references are to Chemical Bank and therefore would propse that the article be moved to this spot --|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend a move back to Chemical Banking Corporation, from which this was mistakenly moved in 2006 (misreading WP:NCCORP). Otherwise, there might be unnecessary confusion with Chemical Bank in Michigan (see Chemical Financial Corporation). Station1 (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Chemical Bank. The company was almost universally known as Chemical Bank. Also, while the holding company was Chemical Banking Corporation, the bank itself, the more well known of the two entities, was Chemical Bank. Finally, for most of its history, the entire entity was "The Chemical Bank of New York".--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TeacherA (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fundamentally good article. I am inclined to pass it in its current form but do have suggestions to improve it.

A little more history is needed. How big was the bank. Market share or at least assets held. Areas that it was strong. Countries that it expanded into. In essence, a little more description about the company. There is also no mention of the big wigs of the company, like the CEO. Of course, not a full list of every CEO in history, but a little info.

As far as all the other criteria, it passes by a long shot. Just a little work in being broad in its coverage will make it unquestionably good. Good luck. TeacherA (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried addressing some of these items - could probably do even more over time. Appreciate the feedback. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

TeacherA (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Chemical Bank

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 GA has 8 citation needed templates; unsourced statements notably include entire paragraphs and parts of the Notable employees and executives section. Some book sources are also missing page numbers. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I checked the source for one statement I knew to be incorrect, and the source failed to verify two key aspects of the statement. Added a tag to it. This false statement and non-verified source were present in the article during the GA review 14 years ago. Given the error, I will likely go through and spot check some more sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.