Talk:Libor Michálek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 21:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. It's my practice to fill out the review template, and if necessary, copy-edit and make further suggestions below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a very short article. I realize that GAs don't have a length requirement, but there may be things you can do to lengthen it, even using some of your current sources.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Even though there's no convention about section headings and their titles for BLPs and bios, I suggest re-naming them. "Background" can be changed to "Early life and career", for example.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources look mostly reliable. Some are self-published and industry sites, but I realize that they're necessary for comprehensiveness. The webcite links either don't work or they load really slowly. I recommend going through and re-checking them to make sure they all work well.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I would fail this article based on this criteria alone. It's too short, and can be expanded, even with the current sources. For example, ref2 states that Michálek went to grammar school in Přerov; I assume that meant that's where his family lived when he was a child, unless he attended boarding school. Ref2 also names his positions, but it's not here. I know this seems picky, but when you have a subject with limited information about him, you really have to mine the sources for every piece of data you can find. I suggest that you go through your current sources and do that.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Very stable; so stable that there hasn't been any edits of this article since January.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One image is fine with short articles. Perhaps after you're expanded it, you can add more images, if possible.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll pass this article when it's been expanded.

Comments

• Most of my questions can probably be addressed when you expand the article. For example, is there anything in your current sources about the years Michálek worked at his various positions?

I added all of the verifiable detail my sources could muster. I think you'll find my expansion in this part satisfactory. His work experience isn't particularly interesting until the main Drobil case. czar · · 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• This could also be addressed in an expansion: Is there any particulars about the tunneling scheme; how Michálek discovered it, etc.? Has there been any discussion about how he and others feel about how he was able to find corruption in two of the largest financial institutions in the Czech Republic?

There is no information on the 1996 tunneling scheme online, and the Czech print newspapers are not particularly accessible. The Drobil affair interviews aren't really about his process, but about the case itself. Again, I've included any verifiable detail. czar · · 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• What was his compensation after winning the court case?

(see above) czar · · 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• When did the ODS promise to fight corruption?

The "vow to fight corruption" is directly from the The Economist source, but is referenced in both of the sentence's citations. The reason for inclusion was more about the sociopolitical impact of the scandal than to give a history of ODS. czar · · 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why was the corruption trial postponed?

Officially, "lack of evidence"—added some more detail here czar · · 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ref16 is confusing; I've clicked on it a few times, and it brings me to the SZ page with a different slogan and official each time, but with the rest of the page blank.

I suppose you mean the Strana Zelených source (then-Ref18) since Český statistický úřad (then-Ref16) doesn't have pictures. The banner rotates at the top with several party leaders, but the confusing part was that the link was dead (the page was mostly blank). The archived version (with the full text) is the main link now. czar · · 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please make sure that your sources support the statements made here. This is especially important because several sources are in Czech.

I was very careful and extremely conservative with my original edits, especially with some weaker sources and translating from Czech. (The cswiki article is longer in some areas, but with many unsourced and sloppy statements, and I err towards terse and tight.) I have expanded per your suggestions, but only added that which I could safely verify. czar · · 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

On hold for seven days until these issues are addressed. Thanks, and good luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you be willing to extend that hold for two weeks? I've been away and will continue to be away for the next week, and I'd like to be able to improve this article if you can spare the extension. czar · · 06:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind extending the time at all. I'll give you two weeks from today, 3-31 (Easter Sunday). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write detailed comments. I beefed it up with the last verifiable details as I could squeeze out of the available sources. I have responded inline above and I recommend breaking out any further responses into a new thread so it isn't lost in the jungle of text. Re: webcite (in #2)—yes, it can be hit-or-miss, but I only archived them for completeness. I checked the links and changed the citations so the primary links go to the original, live pages (where available). Re: #3—I expanded on your recommendations (and much more) where it didn't require leaps in logic. Thank you again for your time. czar · · 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for making the changes as I suggested. You'll notice that I broke up the long paragraph in the "Early life and career" section. Other than that, we're good. Congratulations, I will go and pass to GA now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)