Talk:Outrageous Betrayal/GA1

GA Review PASS
Good work. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) The lengthy list of books in Note 6 seemed a bit unnecessary; perhaps cut it down to two or three of the most notable books or authors.
 * 2) I've never seen the superscripted page number format used in the lawsuit section ([1]:279). Is that a typo?
 * 3) There was info in the WP:LEDE about "claims that est graduates had made" that I didn't see in the article. I removed it from the lede; maybe you'll wanna put it in the article's body somewhere.
 * 4) The whole article felt... very slightly... loose in its organization and focus. You may wanna run ith through WP:LoCE, WP:PR etc etc yadda yadda for fine-tuning.. but all in all it's good enough for GA. Congrats! --Ling.Nut (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Addressing points from successful GA review
 * Thank you! I will begin to address these helpful suggestions you have made, and note them here, below.  Cirt (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) ✅ - I took a few referenced sources out of that citation.
 * 2) ✅ - I removed the superscripted page number, mention of the section of the book itself is enough.
 * 3) ✅ - already took the initiative to fix that issue in the Lead/Intro.
 * 4) ✅ - For sure, the next step will be WP:PR to get some more ideas on improving the quality of this article. Thanks for all your help and pointers!