Talk:Insane Clown President/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to review this article. I have previously attempted to review two other articles, but those reviews turned out to be unmitigated catastrophes and ended up having to be completely reverted. Thankfully, those were both over five months ago. I have been studying the good article criteria and I think it is time for me to give this a second shot. The reason I chose this article is because I recently nominated the article ancient Greek literature in this category and, as I was looking through the other nominations listed, the title of this article caught my attention. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my examination of the article, I do not believe it meets any of the criteria for immediate failure, which means that my review will continue in the forthcoming days:

The article is definitely not far from satisfying the good article criteria.
I can find nothing in the article that seems to be copyright violation. The image of the cover of the book is marked as licensed under "fair use" and all of the other images in the article have appropriate licensing agreements. None of the text seems to be plagiarized from anywhere else.
There are no cleanup banners, nor do I think that any cleanup banners are necessary. The article appears to be well-cited.
I looked back through the article's history and found absolutely no trace of edit-warring of any kind.

As far as I am concerned, there is no justification for quick-failing this article. I will return shortly to continue my review and provide more extensive feedback. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments:

The article is very well-written for the most part. I did find a missing quotation mark at one point, but I fixed it. You already had a quotation mark at the end of the quotation, but had accidentally left off the one at the beginning.
The references were easy to check since most of them were linked in the citations.
The article adequately covers the content of the book itself, as well its background and reception.
Despite the controversy surrounding the subject of the article, the article is surprisingly neutral. The "Reception" section covers both positive and negative reactions to the book.
The article is extremely stable; nearly all recent changes to the article are extremely minor tweaks conducted by the primary author.
The article uses a number of helpful images, including the front cover of the book, a photograph of Trump on the campaign trail, and a photograph of the author of the book.

Based on my understanding of the criteria, I believe that this article passes all of them. If you think I have made a mistake or the article has not really passed, please contact me and inform me of my mistake.--Katolophyromai (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.