Jump to content

Talk:Nik Russian con/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD

The LEAD leaves the reader wondering the following:

  • Were there any law enforcement actions?
  • Any judicial rulings?
  • Any monetary penalties?
  • As best as I can find, no to all three. It's mentioned later in the article, but, as Russian hadn't actually taken any cash from his victims, he hadn't technically committed a crime. A civil case wasn't pursued due to a lack of money. I have added this information to the lead.
  • I guess he wasn't really working within the book industry - he had a low-paying job at a single branch of a much larger chain. I have now specified this in the lead.
Background
  • Do you have a year for "He studied English at Goldsmiths, University of London, but dropped out before the exams"?
  • No, unfortunately. I would hazard a guess that it was circa 1998, but I can't find any sources to verify that.
  • This sentence is runon: "He had set up businesses and written unpublished novels, before he took a job working at a branch of Waterstone's in London and then decided that he wanted to produce his own reality television programme."
  • Rewritten.
  • Do you have a citation for "Most British reality TV programmes at the time centred on a team of people trying to accomplish a specific goal or target"?
  • Added.
  • "Featured" is the verb, surely?
  • I mean it needs to be is featured, was featured, or has been featured to be grammatical in this context.
  • Changed.
  • Done.
Swindle
  • Russian set the contestants tests during the audition phase; some of the tests measured how they responded to practical problems, while others measured their psychological responses. I've changed the word "set" to "given" - is this an improvement?
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for some basic revisions.
Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Thanks for your patience. I can now pass this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks Tony! And thanks again for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nik_Russian_con/GA1&oldid=1219043700"