Talk:Trump University/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR   18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * " (A separate organization, Trump Institute, was licensed by Trump University but not owned by the Trump Organization.)" - no need for this to be in brackets
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No original research found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I've done some minor cleaning up if that's OK. Overall this is well written, comprehensive and all of the sources check out. It meets every aspect of the criteria so I'll pass it. JAG UAR   16:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Post-review
Tacking on to the end of the review, some passing thoughts: czar 18:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some gaps in coverage here, specifically in what the classes contained (?!?) and also in the glue between sentences—
 * The dateline format is really hard to follow (On Dec 13, 2016, X, etc.) Either remove the dates or put it in a relative format (the next month). Makes for better prose.
 * The lede should better cover what the classes contained too, as right now it reads like a coat rack for discussing the lawsuits. It might be true that it's primarily known for the lawsuits now, but the topic itself still needs due weight.
 * Reduce the one-sentence paragraphs, pull similar content together for meaningful flow