Talk:Nik Russian con/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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)

The LEAD leaves the reader wondering the following:
 * WP:LEAD
 * 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for some basic revisions.
 * Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 20:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for some basic revisions.
 * Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 20:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; 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 &#124; contribs) 00:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)