Donald Trump
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I'm looking for some detailed suggestions on how to make this article better. The long term goal here is GA or A-class. Certain sections that have been points of contention here in the past are the Lead section, Racial views, the 2019 congressional investigations and the Mueller Report. If I could have suggestions on improving these sections that is great. I would also like some suggestions on improving the article so that it better complies with NPOV, V, etc. Actually, I think V is fine.
Thanks, Mgasparin ( talk) 02:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a regular editor of the article, weighing in on one particular point,
Mgasparin. In the case of making the article comply better with WP:V, surely all we have to do is double check if the content in the article matches the 700+ references, no? I don't think there's any way around that.
starship
.paint (
talk) 04:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Starship.paint I struck WP:V as it's actually fine. NPOV is really where I would like the feedback. In previous GAR's and discussions, that has been a point of contention. Mgasparin ( talk) 05:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- As background, part of what precipitates this (I think) is this recent intelligent, articulate, and AGF suggestion for a review of the article's neutrality. I was not aware of the existence of peer review and replied "if there's a mechanism for independent review of an article's general neutrality, I'm not aware of it". Despite the heading there, I think the OP's first sentence indicates they were more concerned about the article's lead than the remainder of the article. As far as we can tell, the OP has now moved on, but I think some experienced outside eyes wouldn't hurt and might help – whether that's to improve the article or bolster the regulars' view that it's acceptable as is, always subject to policy-based suggestions for improvement. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not a super regular contributor to the page, but I stop by occasionally and have launched a few discussions when I've noticed issues. A few months back, I did a comparative review of the leads of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump which I think might be useful here, so I'll quote myself:
I did a comparative review of how the intro to this article covers Trump's presidency versus how Presidency of Donald Trump does so. Here are my takeaways, reflecting mostly topics that get more WP:WEIGHT in one than the other (and incorporating a bit of my own knowledge of how both compare to the amount of media coverage the topics receive). I'm frankly too burnt out at this point to go through the inevitable battles that would have to be waged to implement any of the changes suggested here, but I hope some of these points may serve as inspiration for proposals for those of you with remaining energy.
- Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel gets the same phrasing in both articles' leads, which translates to proportionally much less here (given that this article devotes only one paragraph to his presidency, rather than the entire five-paragraph intro at the presidency article). It's also received much less media attention than some other listed aspects, so overall, it may be a candidate for removal.
- This article pretty much does not mention Trump's deregulation and hollowing out of the administrative state in the intro, whereas the presidency article has a few sentences on it and includes it as the first specific aspect listed.
- In foreign policy, one area mentioned in the presidency intro but not here is the withdrawal of troops from Northern Syria. My intuition is that this issue has received at least as much media attention as the Jerusalem item.
- The presidency intro devotes significant attention to immigration issues, including the shutdown caused by Trump's demand for federal funding of the border wall and the family separation policy, whereas this intro covers only the Muslim ban and nothing else. Given the massive media coverage of Trump's wall and other immigration issues, I could see some of the language from there being brought over here.
- The Mueller Investigation and Impeachment Inquiry receive roughly proportional coverage, with both getting significant attention in their own paragraph (here) or paragraphs (in the presidency intro).
- Hopefully it's not too out of date.
- Overall, my impression is that the Herculean amount of attention paid to the page by editors on both sides of the political spectrum has led to a good level of comprehensiveness and decently good NPOV compliance. I'm much more concerned about pages like
Ronald Reagan, where one side pays a lot more attention than the other, leading to a (in my view) NPOV result. For Trump, the main concern is that so many
ants are pulling sideways on it that a lot of editor effect is wasted that could have been better spent elsewhere. But I have no idea how that could practically be avoided, and even if there was some plausible method, I'd be very hesitant to adopt it—compared to Facebook/Google/the rest of the internet, the quality of our U.S. politics coverage is a remarkable achievement, and it's a boat we don't want to rock, since it may be less stable than we think. Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 03:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
-
Sdkb This will probably have to go through the bureaucratic process (talk page discussion) before being implemented, but thank you very much for your comments!
Mgasparin (
talk) 02:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ Sdkb: - thanks for reviewing and weighing in. On issue 3, the lede of Donald Trump does mention the withdrawal of troops in Northern Syria. It's at the end of the 2nd last paragraph. On issue 4, we've discussed it, we've had proposals to add things (including from me), but there's been some resistance that the body isn't updated enough for the lede to feature it. starship .paint ( talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
-
Sdkb This will probably have to go through the bureaucratic process (talk page discussion) before being implemented, but thank you very much for your comments!
Mgasparin (
talk) 02:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Donald Trump
| Toolbox |
|---|
| This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I'm looking for some detailed suggestions on how to make this article better. The long term goal here is GA or A-class. Certain sections that have been points of contention here in the past are the Lead section, Racial views, the 2019 congressional investigations and the Mueller Report. If I could have suggestions on improving these sections that is great. I would also like some suggestions on improving the article so that it better complies with NPOV, V, etc. Actually, I think V is fine.
Thanks, Mgasparin ( talk) 02:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a regular editor of the article, weighing in on one particular point,
Mgasparin. In the case of making the article comply better with WP:V, surely all we have to do is double check if the content in the article matches the 700+ references, no? I don't think there's any way around that.
starship
.paint (
talk) 04:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Starship.paint I struck WP:V as it's actually fine. NPOV is really where I would like the feedback. In previous GAR's and discussions, that has been a point of contention. Mgasparin ( talk) 05:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- As background, part of what precipitates this (I think) is this recent intelligent, articulate, and AGF suggestion for a review of the article's neutrality. I was not aware of the existence of peer review and replied "if there's a mechanism for independent review of an article's general neutrality, I'm not aware of it". Despite the heading there, I think the OP's first sentence indicates they were more concerned about the article's lead than the remainder of the article. As far as we can tell, the OP has now moved on, but I think some experienced outside eyes wouldn't hurt and might help – whether that's to improve the article or bolster the regulars' view that it's acceptable as is, always subject to policy-based suggestions for improvement. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not a super regular contributor to the page, but I stop by occasionally and have launched a few discussions when I've noticed issues. A few months back, I did a comparative review of the leads of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump which I think might be useful here, so I'll quote myself:
I did a comparative review of how the intro to this article covers Trump's presidency versus how Presidency of Donald Trump does so. Here are my takeaways, reflecting mostly topics that get more WP:WEIGHT in one than the other (and incorporating a bit of my own knowledge of how both compare to the amount of media coverage the topics receive). I'm frankly too burnt out at this point to go through the inevitable battles that would have to be waged to implement any of the changes suggested here, but I hope some of these points may serve as inspiration for proposals for those of you with remaining energy.
- Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel gets the same phrasing in both articles' leads, which translates to proportionally much less here (given that this article devotes only one paragraph to his presidency, rather than the entire five-paragraph intro at the presidency article). It's also received much less media attention than some other listed aspects, so overall, it may be a candidate for removal.
- This article pretty much does not mention Trump's deregulation and hollowing out of the administrative state in the intro, whereas the presidency article has a few sentences on it and includes it as the first specific aspect listed.
- In foreign policy, one area mentioned in the presidency intro but not here is the withdrawal of troops from Northern Syria. My intuition is that this issue has received at least as much media attention as the Jerusalem item.
- The presidency intro devotes significant attention to immigration issues, including the shutdown caused by Trump's demand for federal funding of the border wall and the family separation policy, whereas this intro covers only the Muslim ban and nothing else. Given the massive media coverage of Trump's wall and other immigration issues, I could see some of the language from there being brought over here.
- The Mueller Investigation and Impeachment Inquiry receive roughly proportional coverage, with both getting significant attention in their own paragraph (here) or paragraphs (in the presidency intro).
- Hopefully it's not too out of date.
- Overall, my impression is that the Herculean amount of attention paid to the page by editors on both sides of the political spectrum has led to a good level of comprehensiveness and decently good NPOV compliance. I'm much more concerned about pages like
Ronald Reagan, where one side pays a lot more attention than the other, leading to a (in my view) NPOV result. For Trump, the main concern is that so many
ants are pulling sideways on it that a lot of editor effect is wasted that could have been better spent elsewhere. But I have no idea how that could practically be avoided, and even if there was some plausible method, I'd be very hesitant to adopt it—compared to Facebook/Google/the rest of the internet, the quality of our U.S. politics coverage is a remarkable achievement, and it's a boat we don't want to rock, since it may be less stable than we think. Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 03:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
-
Sdkb This will probably have to go through the bureaucratic process (talk page discussion) before being implemented, but thank you very much for your comments!
Mgasparin (
talk) 02:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ Sdkb: - thanks for reviewing and weighing in. On issue 3, the lede of Donald Trump does mention the withdrawal of troops in Northern Syria. It's at the end of the 2nd last paragraph. On issue 4, we've discussed it, we've had proposals to add things (including from me), but there's been some resistance that the body isn't updated enough for the lede to feature it. starship .paint ( talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
-
Sdkb This will probably have to go through the bureaucratic process (talk page discussion) before being implemented, but thank you very much for your comments!
Mgasparin (
talk) 02:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)