Talk:Saradha Group financial scandal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one! Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for all your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I'm making some tweaks as I go; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. This looks like it's off to a good start--solid prose, good citations to reliable sources, and what seems to be fairly complete coverage of the topic. I do have some concerns about clarity and a few unsourced/possibly inaccurate statements, noted individually below. Let me know what you think. When you've had a chance to address these I'll continue with the rest. Thanks again for your efforts on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary collapse to avoid overlong page--issues resolved

"this practice was greatly curbed by several Moneylenders Acts enacted by state governments in the 1950s" -- this appears to need citation ✔ provided a relevant citation about intent of government from a report by Reserve bank of India, amended the line accordingly. "However, the fundamental failure to replace the role of moneylenders gave rise to fly-by-night financial operators who ran Ponzi schemes in various disguises" -- calling this a "fundamental failure" seems POV, and needs intext citation ("According to analyst X,") ✔ dropped 'fundamental' "However some commentators place" -- the citation only seems to indicate that one commentator feels this way. You should probably just say "Vivek Kaul places the blame..." ✔ added more citations "complaints have been filed against more than 8 out of every 10 multi-level marketing and finance schemes in West Bengal" -- this doesn't seem to be a correct summary of this article, which says that out of every 10 complaints filed in India, 10 are in West Bengal--not that 80% of West Bengal financiers are Ponzi scams. ✔ amended appropriately Is the comparison between Saradha and MMM (Ponzi scheme company) supported by a source? ✔ added one source (at some levels all ponzi schemes look similar) "on an unprecedented spree" -- is there a source that this is unprecedented? - This was a bit of OR so dropped 'unprecedented', but buying spree is cited by a Hoot article "By 2013 it employed over 1500 journalists and owned eight newspapers in five languages" -- what is the source for this statistic? ✔ it was already there citation number 44 "It is possible that this Ponzi scheme only survived" -- this speculation should be attributed in-text to a specific author/speaker ✔ added one more citation "He is in his mid-50s"; "Debjani is in her early 30s" -- this should be rewritten to include something like "at the time of his arrest", or "in 2013," per WP:REALTIME; this will go out of date in a few years ✔ did the necessary editing " She was well known locally for her generosity to her community." -- needs a source ✔ added the source -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC) -- Looking forward to more comments etc. LegalEagle (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks! I'll take a look over these and work through the rest in the next 2-3 days. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Er, sorry. My stepson's with us for the weekend--I'll actually be back on Tuesday, and will make this one of my first priorities. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "However, apart from the SEBI investigation, no executive actions were taken at this time." -- this should probably be sourced.
• "RBI governor" -- write out the acronym on first use ("Reserve Bank of India" I assume?)
• "the tide had irrevocably turned." -- rewrite without idiom per WP:IDIOM
• "After posting this letter on 10 April, Sen fled." -- This should have an inline citation. (since this article involves recent criminal activity, it needs more thorough citation than most for WP:BLP reasons.)
• "On 17 April, approximately 600 collection agents claiming to be associated with Saradha Group assembled at the headquarters of TMC and demanded government intervention." -- needs citation
• "The mood of despondency quickly spread across Bengal." -- Is this part sourced? The following source seems to focus on Dakshin Barasat rather than all of Bengal.
• Mamata Banerjee should be identified by her position the first time her name is mentioned

Closing review

Overall this article does a very good job explaining this financial disaster--thanks for all your work on it! I don't believe it's ready for GA at this time, though, for the simple reason that it's an ongoing current event that hasn't fully played out yet. Already the article has fallen behind events such as the Sen commission repaying investors, more arrests, and M Bannerjee's attempts at relief. I would suggest that this be renominated once the commissions, official action, and major related trials (particularly Sudipto Sen's) are complete; until then, I'm not sure the article meets the stability criterion.

In the meantime, I see three major areas to work on: the lead, copyediting, and sourcing. The lead seems incomplete--for example, it doesn't mention Sen or Bannerjee, both major players in this. It could be expanded to better summarize the events. The article also needs minor copyediting, some of which I've already done. If you'd like any help with this, the Guild of Copyeditors takes requests and is usually terrific. Lastly, I'd suggest going over the article closely to make sure that all information is sourced with inline citations. Since this is about recent crimes and involves living people, it's important that it be rigorously cited.

I hope this helps, and sorry that for reasons beyond your control, I can't give it a pass at this time. If you work on the above, however, it should be ready for renomination when events are closer to resolution. Thanks again for your work on this, and just let me know if you have any questions, Khazar2 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I agree that the things need to play out completely, I would update the points raised by you and I guess things should stabilise by first quarter of next year, so hopefully I would try for GA again then. Thanks. LegalEagle (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Great--good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)