Talk:Royal Mail Case/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ironholds in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

The article is well written and sources look good. However I noticed a few problems.

  1. The lead says: Lord Kylsant, had been falsifying records, accounts. However they were acquitted from falsifying, were not they? So this sentence should be changed to something more consistent with facts.
    Fixed, I think. Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
  2. The lead contains the following statement:The company was then liquidated, and reconstituted as The Royal Mail Lines Ltd with the backing of the British government. However, the main text does not mentions this fact. Per WP:LEAD the lead is just a summary of the article and should not contain any information not mentioned in the main text. I think in the last section you should write in more detail how the company was reconstituted.
    Fixed, but I've got no idea about "more detail". If I understand correctly they probably did a typical trick of declaring bankruptcy, selling all the assets to a "new" company as a way of getting rid of debtors and then started up under a new name, but I've yet to see any RS on the matter. I'll do those items below in the evening when I get home. Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Amend that - found some stuff, but doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
  3. The should answer the following questions:
  4. The article should provide some information about the life of Lord Kylsant after prison. What did he do after his downfall?
    Added all I can find - none of the source I've got available list what a "return to the public eye" entailed exactly.
  5. Are any photos of Lord Kylsant available?

Ruslik_Zero 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I satisfied with the current state of the article, and will promote it. 08:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)