Talk:Olympus scandal/GA1

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

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.

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