Wikipedia:Peer review/Check kiting/archive1

Check kiting

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like a potential GA, but I'd like to seek some additional input before submitting a nomination. It's completely referenced, reads well, and has no concern tags.

Thanks, C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 19:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I gave this article a quick scan. Despite the intro above, this article is not completely referenced—the section dubbed "Retail-based kiting" has no cites whatsoever. It also has a "dead link" tag posted as a concern tag. Additionally, it partially overlaps in subject matter with Cheque fraud; a merge should be considered.

I do not believe this article is anywhere near GA Status; it lacks the citations to even clear B Class standards.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in agreement with the idea of a merge. Check Kiting is a form of Check Fraud, but it's much more appropriate for it to have its own article. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expect that you would be in favor of a merge. However, the fact that I suggest it points out the lack of demarcation between the two articles.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LT910001

Thanks for your edits to this article. I agree that this article would need to be improved before it could be promoted to GA. Some improvements you might want to consider include:

References for all paragraphs
Rewriting the lead to make it less technical
Summarising the examples given, and providing more information on analysis / use in famous crimes / history / current prevalence etc.

I would advise you to find and consult an additional 3-4 sources, such as news articles, books, or journal articles, that detail the use and history of this crime, expand the article with these sources, and then consider nomination. I think that the input of an extra 3-4 good sources would probably help you renovate the article and would make a big difference. I hope this input is helpful! Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 19:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
- Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Checklinks found 1 dead links out of a total of 13 links on 19 November 2013 at 06:15. (View results)

-(t) Josve05a (c) 22:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]