Wikipedia:Peer review/Olympus scandal/archive1

Olympus scandal
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article was created by me, its sole editor. An objective appraisal is hereby requested.

Thanks, Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A few concerns after a quick glance-over:-
 * Does the article have the correct neutral, encyclopaedic tone? The caption in the lead image uses the adjective "disgraced"; section headings such as "Spending spree", "Enter and exit Woodford", "Heads roll" are more suggestive of investigative journalism than an encyclopedia.
 * Another issue is the use of unexplained terms which the general reader will have difficulty understanding. What, for example, does "goodwill" mean in this context? Or "highly-geared? What is the meaning of the sentence "When the main business is struggling, we need to earn through zaitech"? These are just a few examples taken from the early part of the article. Some of this may need rephrasing; otherwise more use needs to be made of wikilinking and/or brief explanations.
 * I am very dubious about the justification for the three non-free images. The reader's understanding of the article isn't assisted by knowing what certain individuals look like, so what is the central rationale for their use?
 * Subheadings necessary in References section, to distinguish citations from sources.

The article looks interesting and I would like to give it a more detailed review, though at present my time available doesn't permit this, but perhaps you would give some consideration to the above issues. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the feedback. It's much appreciated. Rare to see such corporate drama played out in public, and so easy to get carried away with such an interesting story. I'll work on making the changes as you suggest. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Noleander comments - Cool article. I don't have time to review it, but I noticed one little thing:
 * "After Woodford was deposed, ..." - "Deposed" can mean dethroned, or legal questioning. Probably should use a less ambiguous word here. --Noleander (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when someone would pick it up! ;) -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Olympus had replaced KPMG with E&Y after it ..."  - "it" could refer to either of the three preceding entities.  Replace "it" with one of their names. --Noleander (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "... a success fee .." - that term won't be known to most readers .. define it, or re-word it.
 * Section "Intermediaries" begins very abruptly .. .what is the flow from previous section?   "Intermediaries" needs to be defined (in context) in the 1st sentence of that section.
 * Section "Intermediaries" - title is not too informative. I think this section is trying to list the questionable business transactions?  Then name the section "Questionable business ventures" or something like that.
 * Section "Catalyst" - title is too abstract, too poetic. Title should be more factual, encyclopedic.  Maybe name the section "Woodford presidency" or something like that.
 * Stock chart: - This article would be much better if it had a stock price charge from, say January 2011 to December 2011.  I think that is public information, so you should be able to visit any stock website and do a screen capture of the chart.  But I'm not sure about that: you may want to check at Media copyright questions.
 * Section "Resignations" - The quote at the beginning is off-putting. The section should start with prose, and the quote should be  just supplementary.   Perhaps just move the quote to the right side.  The Quote box template lets you align quotes off to the side.
 * Perhaps use Quote box for all quote boxes in this article, to move them to the side.   Quote boxes that span the full width interrupt article flow. --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Phrase: "... two men who were appointed to the board in June – Yasuo Hayashida, physician and visiting professor at Juntendo University, and Hiroshi Kuruma,  ..." is a bit confusing.  Too many "ands".  I'd suggest only naming one occupation for Hayashida to fix it.
 * The footnotes are not very user friendly. Let's say I want to learn more about footnote #46 " Financial Times, 8 Nov. 2011".  I click on the link #46, and my browser jumps down to the References section ... but I am in the middle of the References section ... I don't see which of the dozens of bullets in the References section that matches #46.  I suppose I could hunt for a bullet that says " Financial Times, 8 Nov. 2011":  I look at a few and cannot find it.  That seems rather unsatisfactory.  I cannot find the author of the  Financial Time article; nor can I find the article title;  nor can I find a a URL to go read the Financial Times article.   It is obvious that a lot of work has gone into the cites, and there is a lot of detail, so I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth; but the fact is I cannot find the sources, and that is a pretty fatal flaw.
 * FYI: I posted a query at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources to get input from other editors on this footnote approach. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor confirmed what I suspected: the footnotes should be using the sfn template .... that will produce the desired result, and help readers follow the citations. In other words, all the citations should be changed  to use  sfn.

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User Gadget850 also points out some improvements to cites: They say:  "The shortened citations are using work-date styles, where author date is more common. The Citations list starts with author but is ordered by work, which is a bit confusing. And months should not be abbreviated per WP:MONTH.".
 * Thanks for all the comments. I will try to integrate them over the next couple of weeks. Truth be told, I was inspired by the work done at Question Time British National Party controversy, and then searched articles that use different styles. I couldn't understand how to use harvard or equivalent citations without needing to put all the cites into those dreaded citation templates, so I stuck with the original model. AFter your comment, I'm encouraged to look at the method described. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)