Template:Did you know nominations/Tremont Group

Tremont Group

 * ... that three years after a Tremont Group employee wrote a book section on the importance of due diligence, his company paid $1 billion for its failure to conduct due diligence in the Madoff scandal?
 * Reviewed: Evangelism Explosion

Created by Epeefleche (talk). Self nom at 18:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, well-sourced, no close paraphrasing seen in sources. A few issues:
 * Could you provide page numbers for book sources? (I added a few)
 * The information being cited in the lead does not appear in Footnote 4; why is this one of the citations?
 * The first part of the hook is not stated or sourced in the article. It looks like it was removed in this edit by an anonymous IP.
 * Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Addressed 1 where it was possible to determine (though its unclear how as a practical matter that helps readers given that they can already click through to the link in each case -- it would be different for refs without click through links); # 2 supports that it is a hedge fund (says it is a small one), though it is not a key ref and could be deleted if anyone cares; # 3 -- great and important catch ... obviously a Manhattan vandal IP, who has vandalized before as well.  Fixed.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Thank you. All is in order. Offline hook ref AGF. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I'm having trouble with the phrase "book section", both in the hook and in the article. This is an encyclopdia entry—I suppose you might call it an article, but while that isn't as grandiose as "section", it still feels overstated. Still, I think "wrote an encyclopdia entry" is a more effective hook phrase than "wrote a book section"—encyclopedias are far more authoritative sounding by their very nature—and calling it variously an encyclopedia entry or article would be more descriptive and accurate than "book section". The entry is, as can be seen in the encyclopedia, less than a page. There is also another detail: while the Encyclopedia was published in 2008, that doesn't necessarily mean Richardson wrote it in 2008; in fact, given publishing lead times, it's more likely that he wrote it at least the year before. Since one of his footnotes cites a 2007 source, it won't have been written earlier than that. You'll probably want it to say that it was three years after the encyclopedia article was published... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We want everyone to be happy. And I liked your first suggestion.  See below.  I would leave the rest.  Whenever I'm published, I have to give my final sign-off on my writing directly before publication.  And this was published in the latter half of the year in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alt 1. * ... that three years after a Tremont Group employee wrote an encyclopedic entry on the importance of due diligence, his company paid $1 billion for its failure to conduct due diligence in the Madoff scandal?
 * Unfortunately, ALT1 is 203 characters, which is above the maximum of 200 (and it's always better to be below the max). You could save one character by using "encyclopedia" rather than "encyclopedic" and four by substituting "failing" for "its failure", or make other cuts, as you prefer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And thanks for the perfect solutions.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Alt 2. *... that three years after a Tremont Group employee wrote an encyclopedia entry on the importance of due diligence, his company paid $1 billion for failing to conduct due diligence in the Madoff scandal?
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg ALT2 comes in at 198 char. IMO, it's good to go. Yoninah (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)