Talk:Nik Russian con/GA1

GA Review

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)

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

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.

• Also, did he use his position in the book industry to publish the ads?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• 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.

• Might entry-level be a better term than low-paying which has a very pejorative connotation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, that is better. Changed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• What other names does the press use to refer to this incident? They should be included in the first sentence in bold.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've checked the sources, and there wasn't really any other name by which it was referred - if it was called anything, it was called the Great Reality TV Swindle. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• What about the Project MS-2 Hoax?. Project MS-2 should be in the LEAD somehow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I see what you mean. Added to lead. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also use the {{GBP}} with the link option on first use of the pound.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

• "Phillips featured as a DIY expert on programmes such as Trading Up and Renovation Street" needs a verb.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "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.

• Ah, I see. Changed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Should be had been I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Changed.

• What are these unlinked shows. Can you associate them with a network? E.g., BBC's Trading Up and Channel 4's Renovation Street--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done.

Swindle

• I don't understand this phrase: "set practical and psychological tests"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

That's great, thanks Tony! And thanks again for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)