Talk:Jon Stewart–Jim Cramer conflict/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

• Please make sure citations appear at the end of sentences unless it is intended to cite only a portion of the sentence.
• Stewart referenced that Cramer stated is awkward. The last two sentences of this paragraph are confusing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
• I do not understand the point made in the March 10 section about Viacom. Was Stewart insinuating or outright accusing Cramer of working through Viacom, the parent company of MSNBC?

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Quite a few quotes are not cited. All quotes should be cited.
• In the first paragraph of the March 9 section, there is a long quote by Cramer, which is cited to mainstreet.com. But in the quote you've cited The Daily Show and the New York Times. The quote should only be cited to one reliable source. You don't have to cite facts in Cramer's statement, just the statement itself.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Because every article should stand alone, I suggest adding a paragraph at the beginning of the Background section describing the Daily Show, clarifying that it is a comedy news parody and not intended to be news itself, and descriptions of CNBC and Jim Cramer's show specifically. I recall Stewart made comments regarding the noisy in-your-face tone of Cramer's show, and that Cramer defended himself by saying he was trying to make economics entertaining.
• Cramer was shown on video discussing how companies manipulate the market. It was not on his show, however, and I can't recall where it was. An iPod video maybe? I think it should be mentioned since Stewart made an issue of it, that Cramer was well aware of how markets are manipulated by large financial institutions, and that his defense that he only reported what he was told by his friends in corporate positions was flawed. Stewart also criticized Cramer's defense because he failed as a journalist. He did no research and simply took CEOs' statements at face value. (I remember thinking while watching it that Cramer should be familiar with the tag.)
• What is the "it" hyped by NBC in the 6th paragraph under Reactions to the interview?
• What network is Morning Joe on?
• The point made by Joe Scarborough is vague. I'm not quite getting if he's correcting Cramer or trying to slam Stewart.
• Has the format of CNBC or Mad Money changed since the exchange and the open letter to CNBC? What has been the result of all this fuss?

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   More information should be added before making this determination

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Appears to be free of edit wars.

3. 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):

   There are two non-free images in the article. Both are tagged and have fair use rationales, but I am skeptical that either is necessary. I do not know the criteria for non-free images at GA, but I know neither of these rationales would be appropriate if the article was nominated for FA. I will check on this.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article is not quite ready for GA. I'll give you seven days to see to the issues in this review. If no or insufficient gains are made in 7 days, I'll take the article off the GA nomination list. Please let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been seven days and no changes have been made. I am failing the article. Bummer. --Moni3 (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)