This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Saradha Group financial scandal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Saradha Group financial scandal. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Saradha Group financial scandal at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Saradha Group financial scandal appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 May 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Saradha Group financial scandal was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 15, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Kindly brainstorm any news about the scandal, so that it can be appropriately used in the article:
It seems that a stub on same scam was created Saradha chit fund scam, an editor has requested for merge. I think it is quite apt to merge that article into Saradha Group financial scandal. In case there is no opposition, I would merge it in a couple of days. LegalEagle ( talk) 10:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one! Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for all your work on it. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm making some tweaks as I go; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. This looks like it's off to a good start--solid prose, good citations to reliable sources, and what seems to be fairly complete coverage of the topic. I do have some concerns about clarity and a few unsourced/possibly inaccurate statements, noted individually below. Let me know what you think. When you've had a chance to address these I'll continue with the rest. Thanks again for your efforts on this. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
arbitrary collapse to avoid overlong page--issues resolved
|
---|
✔ provided a relevant citation about intent of government from a report by Reserve bank of India, amended the line accordingly.
✔ dropped 'fundamental'
✔ added more citations
✔ amended appropriately
✔ added one source (at some levels all ponzi schemes look similar)
- This was a bit of OR so dropped 'unprecedented', but buying spree is cited by a Hoot article
✔ it was already there citation number 44
✔ added one more citation
✔ did the necessary editing
✔ added the source -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC) -- Looking forward to more comments etc. LegalEagle ( talk) 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC) |
Overall this article does a very good job explaining this financial disaster--thanks for all your work on it! I don't believe it's ready for GA at this time, though, for the simple reason that it's an ongoing current event that hasn't fully played out yet. Already the article has fallen behind events such as the Sen commission repaying investors, more arrests, and M Bannerjee's attempts at relief. I would suggest that this be renominated once the commissions, official action, and major related trials (particularly Sudipto Sen's) are complete; until then, I'm not sure the article meets the stability criterion.
In the meantime, I see three major areas to work on: the lead, copyediting, and sourcing. The lead seems incomplete--for example, it doesn't mention Sen or Bannerjee, both major players in this. It could be expanded to better summarize the events. The article also needs minor copyediting, some of which I've already done. If you'd like any help with this, the Guild of Copyeditors takes requests and is usually terrific. Lastly, I'd suggest going over the article closely to make sure that all information is sourced with inline citations. Since this is about recent crimes and involves living people, it's important that it be rigorously cited.
I hope this helps, and sorry that for reasons beyond your control, I can't give it a pass at this time. If you work on the above, however, it should be ready for renomination when events are closer to resolution. Thanks again for your work on this, and just let me know if you have any questions, Khazar2 ( talk) 15:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Refeenced text removed during c/e that is either incidental ot, or unconnected with Saradha Group. Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
On 4 May 2013, based on complaints filed by depositors under Sikkim Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, Sikkim Police conducted raids on the Gangtok office of Kolkata-headquartered Rose Valley Group, which was also running unregistered collective investment schemes similar to Saradha group. [1] [2]
These two subsecs were commented out:
As per news media at least eighteen agents/depositors [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] and six executives/directors of various money pooling companies have committed suicide in the aftermath of the scandal. [15] [16] [17]
Since the breaking out of the news of the financial scam, the following agents and depositors have committed suicide:
References
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
BS10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd cut a few words:
Surely the financial scam was not caused by the collapse of a Ponzi scheme.
Is the phrase "alleged scandal" meaningful? Is a scandal not a scandal if it's based in false rumor?
The phrase "financial scam" need not be in there at all, because anyone who doesn't know that a Ponzi scheme is a financial scam can click through and quickly learn. — Tamfang ( talk) 07:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The link to their website is dead and needs to be removed TianHao1225 ( talk) 16:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
rose valley 2409:4061:4E81:54F1:0:0:7988:C208 ( talk) 17:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Saradha Group financial scandal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Saradha Group financial scandal. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Saradha Group financial scandal at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Saradha Group financial scandal appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 May 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Saradha Group financial scandal was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 15, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Kindly brainstorm any news about the scandal, so that it can be appropriately used in the article:
It seems that a stub on same scam was created Saradha chit fund scam, an editor has requested for merge. I think it is quite apt to merge that article into Saradha Group financial scandal. In case there is no opposition, I would merge it in a couple of days. LegalEagle ( talk) 10:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one! Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for all your work on it. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm making some tweaks as I go; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. This looks like it's off to a good start--solid prose, good citations to reliable sources, and what seems to be fairly complete coverage of the topic. I do have some concerns about clarity and a few unsourced/possibly inaccurate statements, noted individually below. Let me know what you think. When you've had a chance to address these I'll continue with the rest. Thanks again for your efforts on this. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
arbitrary collapse to avoid overlong page--issues resolved
|
---|
✔ provided a relevant citation about intent of government from a report by Reserve bank of India, amended the line accordingly.
✔ dropped 'fundamental'
✔ added more citations
✔ amended appropriately
✔ added one source (at some levels all ponzi schemes look similar)
- This was a bit of OR so dropped 'unprecedented', but buying spree is cited by a Hoot article
✔ it was already there citation number 44
✔ added one more citation
✔ did the necessary editing
✔ added the source -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC) -- Looking forward to more comments etc. LegalEagle ( talk) 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC) |
Overall this article does a very good job explaining this financial disaster--thanks for all your work on it! I don't believe it's ready for GA at this time, though, for the simple reason that it's an ongoing current event that hasn't fully played out yet. Already the article has fallen behind events such as the Sen commission repaying investors, more arrests, and M Bannerjee's attempts at relief. I would suggest that this be renominated once the commissions, official action, and major related trials (particularly Sudipto Sen's) are complete; until then, I'm not sure the article meets the stability criterion.
In the meantime, I see three major areas to work on: the lead, copyediting, and sourcing. The lead seems incomplete--for example, it doesn't mention Sen or Bannerjee, both major players in this. It could be expanded to better summarize the events. The article also needs minor copyediting, some of which I've already done. If you'd like any help with this, the Guild of Copyeditors takes requests and is usually terrific. Lastly, I'd suggest going over the article closely to make sure that all information is sourced with inline citations. Since this is about recent crimes and involves living people, it's important that it be rigorously cited.
I hope this helps, and sorry that for reasons beyond your control, I can't give it a pass at this time. If you work on the above, however, it should be ready for renomination when events are closer to resolution. Thanks again for your work on this, and just let me know if you have any questions, Khazar2 ( talk) 15:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Refeenced text removed during c/e that is either incidental ot, or unconnected with Saradha Group. Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
On 4 May 2013, based on complaints filed by depositors under Sikkim Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, Sikkim Police conducted raids on the Gangtok office of Kolkata-headquartered Rose Valley Group, which was also running unregistered collective investment schemes similar to Saradha group. [1] [2]
These two subsecs were commented out:
As per news media at least eighteen agents/depositors [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] and six executives/directors of various money pooling companies have committed suicide in the aftermath of the scandal. [15] [16] [17]
Since the breaking out of the news of the financial scam, the following agents and depositors have committed suicide:
References
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
BS10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd cut a few words:
Surely the financial scam was not caused by the collapse of a Ponzi scheme.
Is the phrase "alleged scandal" meaningful? Is a scandal not a scandal if it's based in false rumor?
The phrase "financial scam" need not be in there at all, because anyone who doesn't know that a Ponzi scheme is a financial scam can click through and quickly learn. — Tamfang ( talk) 07:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The link to their website is dead and needs to be removed TianHao1225 ( talk) 16:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
rose valley 2409:4061:4E81:54F1:0:0:7988:C208 ( talk) 17:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)