Wikipedia:Featured article review/Insane Clown Posse/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC) [1].

Insane Clown Posse[edit]

Notified: Sugar Bear, WikiProject Musicians

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because: It does not meet the criteria for a Featured Article. It has major sections un-referenced, and only has two very grainy photos. The "Joker card" Concept is listed multiple times but it is never explained what that is. The more recent sections are poorly written and formatted. RF23 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a 2008 FA. Even looking back at the promoted version, the evolution of FA standards is obvious; I cannot imagine it would pass FAC now. On top of that, the article has been restructured in the 7 years since getting the bronze star. Even if the 2008 article was FA-quality, this is fundamentally a different article. And it's a long way from being an FA-quality one. Prose needs work throughout, entire paragraphs are unreferenced, and I have substantial reservations whether the "era"-based article rebuild was for the better. Speaking of references... they're a mess. Unarchived dead links, entries missing necessary bibliographic information, improperly formatted entries, multiple date formats, and at least a handful of probably-not-reliable sources. And that doesn't even address the image quality problems. I know the goal of FAR is to determine a path that would permit an article to be restored to FA-quality and retain its bronze star, but I just don't see one here: even if enough changes could be made to make this a potential featured article, so much has changed from 2008 (both in terms of standards and this article specifically) that I think it would almost have to go through the process again. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the issues noted above, the article is also out of date - as but one example, it states that the group was sued in 2008, but not what the result is. As a broader concern, the article's content seems very random - for instance, it's not clear why some of the band's many concerts are described when they don't seem to have been unusual. I'd suggest this moving to FARC immediately given that it would require a massive amount of work to bring up to modern FA standards. I'd note that the FAs I took the lead with in 2008 were of a much higher quality than this, so standards weren't that bad back then! Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of something that should be fast-tracked to being delisted. The problems are many, and obvious. --Laser brain (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include referencing, media, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Article is in 8 clean-up categories: Potentially dated statements (April 2007), Dead external links (October 2011, April 2012, September 2014, May 2016), Cleanup needed (January 2018, January 2018), References needed (April 2018). DrKay (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.