`  == Informal GA Review ==  Of course this doesn't actually constitute an ``actual`` GA review, however I thought I'd browse through and bring up the following suggestions to hopefully get the article up to a standard where I would pass it had I not been reviewing it for GA (ie. had I not been involved in the creation of the article).  The main issue here is a lack of sources - if possible, don't just use the actual episodes as sources. Have a look on news websites etc. for synopses and reviews of the episodes, they give the reader something to actually refer to.  1 Well written  :* Prose  ::Very choppy - would benefit well from a copyedit to increase the flow and readability of the ``Challenges`` sections.  :* Manual of Style  ::Nothing too major - it's easy to sort this out once the article is closer to being nominated. There is information in the lead which isn't found elsewhere in the article - this also can be sorted out later down the line.  :* Consistency  ::There are a few key issues here: ::* Selective ``team re-shuffles`` included - either include all of them or none, I'd question their inclusion. ::* Task outlines need to give a clear indication of what consitutes a win - eg. ``The team that makes the most profit wins`` ::* Minor point, but is it Tim or Timothy?   2 Factual accuracy  :All claims need to be backed up with sources - especially those with dubious authenticity (otherwise remove the claims): :* ``Sir Alan said that he chose Tim as the winner because of his likeness to his East End self.`` :* ``Sir Alan Sugar later admitted that Miriam probably didn't deserve to be fired at this point`` :* ``In reality, Paul Torrisi was fired before James Max.`` :* ``She is not allowed to apply for subsequent series of The Apprentice``  3 Coverage  :* Lacking a ``Reception`` section outlining how the series was received in the press, and any viewing ratings.  :* Perhaps include a ``Production`` section - if there are any reliable sources to get the info from. :* References to the American version of The Apprentice - are they really relevant here?  4 Neutrality  :Quite a few highly biased terms in here, just to pick a couple:  :* ``Saira's aggressive behaviour `` :* ``James because Sir Alan and the interviewers were not convinced of his dedication to work for Sir Alan (although he had the best CV of the four)``   5 Stability  :All fine here, the series aired three years ago so this isn't an issue.  6 Images  :No problems, the one image in the article has a valid Fair Use Rationale.`