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

Reviewer: GoAnimateFan199Pro ( talk · contribs) 08:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

1. Overall:

   Quick fail

   This article is not stable, at all. It has its fair share of edit warring. It's normally restricted to extended confirmed editors, likely because of the subject's controversy. It is subject to sanctions, which I believe you don't see often on Wikipedia. As of this review, it is fully protected due to an incident where rogue editors vandalized the article, replacing the lead photo with a picture of a male genitalia. There's no way an article that controversial and unstable will set the standards for other Wikipedia articles. And this coming from the same guy who nominated the article back in May 2017, although that's not too important.

   Other than that, a sentence in the personnel section has a " needs update" tag, and some of the claims have been challenged a fair few times from my skim in the article history. That's about it.

   If I dissatisfied any prominent editors, I will cut back on reviewing articles like this. I jumped on here because I pretty much knew the article was doomed to fail. It's concise and understandable, and there are no cleanup tags I can spot other than the update tag on that one sentence mentioned earlier, but it's just too unstable. GoAnimateFan199Pro ( talk· contribs)