Talk:Olympus scandal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 05:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend some days familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• While I have a look over the article (which on first read is detail-packed and very interesting), there is an 'expand section' tag and some of the references (specifically the last 5-6) are just URLs.

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

This a brilliant and very thorough overview of the scandal that is fascinating to read, and thanks for uploading it. I hope this makes it to DYK and FA after this nomination, as it's of excellent calibre and certainly deserving of the attention of readers. Some notes, which I am happy to discuss:

•  Done The aftermath, covered briefly in the lead, is not mentioned in the text. This is an important aspect of the issue and I would be happy to put the review on hold while the section is completed.
•  Done Some sections, particularly "Stakeholders' reactions", mention a lot of dates, but it is not clear from what year. I'm not entirely conversant in financial issues (my main editing is under the aegis of WP:ANATOMY and WP:MED), and so this might be one contributing factor to my confusion.
•  Done I feel that the lead could be made tighter by shortening some of the sentences and removing any content that is not completely essential to the issue. In particular, I feel that the second and third paragraphs ("Woodford alleged that... / The facts concerning ...") could be shortened.

Some things I have yet to do:

•  Done Verify images
  • No problems
• Check for close paraphrasing/copyright
  •  Done Doesn't appear to be present. Close homology between this article and [1] this document, but the document cites this document as a source, despite an apparent upload date that precedes this article's creation.
•  Done Verify sources

I hope you are well and, after the 'aftermath' has been more fully fleshed-out, do not expect any issues that would prevent promotion. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time. I've now gone over the article and addressed the issues that you raised. I hope that the article as it now stands now meets GA criteria. Let me know if there are any further points that need to be addressed. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Commentary

This is a well-researched and authoritative source, possibly the most authoritative tertiary source available, and well-deserving of GA status. Well done and thanks again for your contributions to Wikipedia. --LT910001 (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)