Talk:Ivanka Trump/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CtasACT (talk · contribs) 17:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CtasACT - Afternoon: is this ready to be passed? No rush, of course. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Thanks: i have looked over it thoroughly as stated, but the only improvement i could say adding a bit more to the introduction part of the article at the top and adding sources for that if expanded, other than that the article meets all of the objective requirements to a Good article status, of course for featured article it would need to be a lot more different in structure and stuff since it is a higher tier of Wiki's standards for the Best of the Best, but for Mrs. Ivanka Trump all of the citation(s), images, layout manual and exc meets the bar test Wikipedia has agreed on for it to be rewarded a GA status. There really isn't anything to be said, unless someone else comes in, if not then i think it indeed passed. Wait for 3 days for someone to join if not then i think its finished. CtasACT (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CtasACT, the review below does not indicate which sources were checked to see if they supported the text and to see if there was any plagiarism. The article also has a lot of WP:Proseline and similar choppy prose, which does not suggest clear or concise writing. The article has a section which is entirely empty except for a main link; if this is an important topic that is enough to fail broadness on its own, if it is not important this should not be a section. The lead is incomplete, not covering some of the article's main sections, although the expansion to the lead does not need more sources as suggested. CMD (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha you're right, as WP:Proseline states 'Sometimes proseline is a bit sneakier,' so as we agree the sourcing is not the problem the structural integrity would be, so i would suggest you to give a throughout break down one some specific issues which sub-section/section(s): Because i do think that this could be fixed really quickly within 3 days and making this GA go through. Since on WP:Proseline it has a "Example of a proseline and a possible resolution" section which can help it. Well i will let the contributor know to fix this problem. Sincerely thanks! CtasACT (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On CtasACT (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have let the nominator know about this, again i think this article is 90% done, only some minor structural changes are need as you said as sections and the Proseline, if the nominator is willing they could fix the problem within 2-3 days if not this article would need to be put on hold waiting for recommended changes and then i do think this article would meet any and all GA status requirements (It already meets the Verifiable, NPOV, Stable, Images). Thanks for your vigilance and discreet notice! @Chipmunkdavis CtasACT (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis Since you have edited Wikipedia far longer than i have i would suggest for you to correct and all Broad coverage and well written categories within this review, please in you're free time give some fixs for @MSincccc if they are still confused on the instructions CtasACT (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not well read enough on the article subject to make a comment on broadness beyond what is immediately apparent in the article. If the Cultural depictions are important, that section should have a couple of paragraphs explaining them. If the cultural depictions are not that important, the section should probably be replaced with a sentence or two elsewhere. In the lead, at the least a sentence or two should be added to cover Early Life, Social and political causes, and Personal life. The current lead is weirdly abrupt, for example dropping "alongside Jared Kushner" without any indication of who Jared Kushner is. A few of the sources in the lead are not used elsewhere, which indicates the lead was not developed as a summary of the body. CMD (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis I have made changes according to WP:PROSELINE but I would greatly appreciate it if you could fix the "Trump campaign and administration" section as I am presently running short of time. I would return tomorrow hopefully. Regards @CtasACT and @Tim O'Doherty as well. MSincccc (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc I think the article is going very well you did fix the section problem it appears on the GA advice, i think you could finish the Trump admin problem through today and tomorrow! And have thought out: thinking the likelihood this article would be given a GA status by me would be by March 20 or most likely the Maximum, of March 21 if the changes are put in! CtasACT (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CtasACT I think I have made the changes you suggested. Please go through the article and let me know of your decision. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passed "good article" nomination

1. Well written?:

Meets Wiki guidelines specifically passes the WP:Proseline

2. Verifiable?:

Pass (Only small amounts of primary which are used with caution sources Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, the majority are from News sources which meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines)

3. Broad in coverage?:

Pass (It gives her personal life well without going to deep in addition to giving good in dive but yet the summary point of view in her political activities, again since she had a relatively normal executive position, the in-depth dive wouldn't be necessary as the extent of Presidents or Secretaries of State for example (Even for them broad coverage at an extent is required), which this article balances in it's generalization, which is good in this article and it follows)

4. Neutral point of view?:

Pass (Overall gives and leans more to the objective factual side rather than lean towards any political or social ideological views of either sides: it gives occurrences, political events, social events and such and responses of such rather than opinion and only opinion which follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

5. Stable?:

Pass (No edit wars or conflict regarding article material, only minor edits)

6. Images?:

Pass (Reasons:All images have valid copyright tags that meet Wikipedia's Copyright and a non-free rational use: All images are Public Domain or Creative Commons licensed images or audiovisual)

Discussion re: cultural depictions

I don't think this article should be promoted until we figure out the cultural depictions content. See Talk:Cultural depictions of Ivanka Trump. Also, as a major contributor to Cultural depictions of Ivanka Trump, I don't appreciate that one editor seems adamant about merging the content without appropriate attribution, as I've pointed out. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CtasACT and Randy Kryn: Putting this comment on your radar, in case you wish to weigh in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also User:Chipmunkdavis, since you commented on cultural depictions above. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer I am ready to help but failing this review is obviously not an immediate solution. Its still very much early in the process. Lets sort it out all and see if we can get it promoted to GA status. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting a fail (yet). I've only suggested a wait on promotion until this is addressed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Cultural depictions article should be kept and expanded, and the parent article (Ivanka Trump) should have a brief summary of cultural depictions. You've said you're ready to help, but from my perspective, all you've done is merged "my" content re: cultural depictions without attribution, flagged a page I've worked on for deletion, and reverted my trimmed version of the cultural depictions from Ivanka Trump. Not exactly constructive collaboration... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer Lets focus on the present. Now that we know each other I hope the two of us can together work towards a successful GA as soon as possible. Let me know of any changes you wish to make and do make any changes you think are constructive and will take us to our desired goal. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I trimmed the Cultural depictions section at Ivanka Trump because I think the Ivanka Trump article only needs a brief summary of Cultural depictions of Ivanka Trump. If you want to collaborate, then I would ask you to: 1) remove the PROD tag, 2) trim the Cultural depictions section, and 3) expand the Cultural depictions article (if you feel inclined). Otherwise, no other editors have supported your effort to merge/delete, and actually Randy Kryn reverted your merge, so the onus is on you to get consensus to merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer PROD tag has been removed. Would like to know from you just how much needs to be trimmed from the Cultural depictions section of the main article. As for the third proposal, it has nothing to do with the GA review as long as it covers sufficient amount of information on her cultural depictions. I would be happy to help. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few changes, and I believe Ivanka_Trump#Cultural_depictions is an appropriate summary of Cultural depictions of Ivanka Trump. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer Thanks a lot. Any further recommendations before the article is passed as GA? MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the 'cultural depictions' issue resolved for now, but I am not interested in reviewing the rest of the article, nor do I care about Ivanka Trump ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]