Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted There is consensus that the original GA pass should be overturned and there are some suggestions below for improving the article for another GA nomination. (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I am opening a community GAR on this article as I believe it does not pass these Good Article criteria:
- Verifiable with no original research: From a quick glance, I see two small parts of uncited prose. They are located at Trump counsel ("Both Jordan and Stefanik had voted to reject electoral votes") and Question-and-answer session: ("Marco Rubio asked both sides (Q26)").
- There are also two tags of [non-primary source needed]. These are at the Reactions - Senate ("Mitch McConnell, who voted for acquittal") and Reactions - President Biden ("He referred to his inauguration speech")
- Broadness: This article is currently tagged with [needs expansion] at the House's brief and Trump's brief sections, both of which has been there since February 2021. As neither the House's Replication or Reply Memorandum in February 2021 has been throughly discussed, I believe this is missing information to pass the broadness criteria.
- Neutrality: I see instances where there are sentences that are not neutral. Examples include:
- Argument preparation - Prosecution: "In a notable departure on strategy, the managers declined to discuss the logistics of their case"
- Argument preparation - Defense: "Castor and Schoen also plan to deny that Trump incited the violence or intended to interfere with Congress’s formalizing of Biden’s victory" and "They further plan to argue that Democrats glorified violence by showing film of the January 6 riot" for example
- Reactions - Senate: "Schumer blasted the Senate's decision to acquit Trump in a floor speech"
Based on the review, it doesn't look like an in-depth check of this article was performed. I believe a community reassessment is needed for this article. Based on a quick check, I see at least 3 of the criteria not currently being passed. There could be more issues (such as prose not being verified with the given citations) but that requires a much more in-depth review. If you have any comments/questions please let me know. Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Never participated at GAR before, so please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong.
- The first set of concerns seems pretty trivial and easily fixable, to me. The Jordan/Stefanik claim can be cited to the Law & Crime ref two sentences back (currently ref 51), and I'm sure to any number of other sources, since it concerns the results of a public vote. The Rubio claim is citable to the source for the preceding sentence, although I don't blame you for missing that, since it's a poorly done cite, linking to a long-scrolling webpage requiring multiple "load more"s. It should probably be broken up into separate permalinks to posts on that page, such as this one, which confirms the Rubio claim. Re McConnell, I'm not sure why a non-primary source is needed for a paraphrase of someone's well-sourced remarks. That's classic primary source territory. The Biden section could definitely benefit from secondary sources, but there's nothing wrong with the primary source there, which is again supporting a paraphrase of his remarks. The exception there is the bit about the inauguration speech, which is inappropriate since there's no source cited saying that it was about the vote.
- The "needs expansion" tags are valid, although about a pretty specific issue: In both sections, a lack of commentary on the reply to the brief being discussed. But still, I agree, not great for that to be in a GA for four months.
- As to neutrality, the "departure on strategy" claim comes from the cited Times article, and I don't see how it's non-neutral to repeat that assertion. Aside from the need for a tense update and MOS:CURLY issue in the Castor/Schoen sentences, that's even-handed reporting of an opinionated statement. It's impossible to write an article on a trial without doing that. Finally, "blasted" is unencyclopedic language, but again, the rest of that sentence is factually presenting someone's opinions.
- I don't know if this should remain a GA, but if it's not going to,
the only reason I can see is the needs-expansion tags and the poor coverage of Biden's responsesee below. Everything else is either fine or can be fixed in a matter of minutes. Which I'm about to go do. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)- I've made the changes. In the course of doing so, I noticed something I consider significantly more of an issue than anything cited above, which is the accumulation of "X might happen in the future" content that was never removed when X actually did or didn't happen. I removed much of that, but in the process noted that, while the Trump–Raffensperger phone call was one of the reasons for his impeachment, the article does not mention it once in its description of the trial. That, to me, is a pretty glaring omission. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thinking about this further, I think this GAR is a case of missing the problematic forest for the not-that-concerning trees. MrLinkinPark has looked for quite minute objections while overlooking the much more significant inssues with completeness and up-to-dateness, but thereby, I think, arrived at the right conclusion for the entirely wrong set of reasons. So, with the strongest possible disagreement with the stated rationale, I strongly concur that this shouldn't be a GA. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: I agree I went a different route and focussed on the criteria that I can determine passed/failed quickly. With a neutrality example ""Castor and Schoen also plan to deny" and the two [needs expansion] tags for broadness, I think they can be connected to your findings of up to date inaccuracies. Thank you for finding the out of date issues :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- After all this... Be advised of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Godsstone, which will likely moot this whole thing. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, this discussion and {{GAR}} may well be moot by the day's end. However, the initial review was grossly inadequate and should be archived with a note in article history. Ditto this review and the article should go back in the queue with a new GAN with the date of the original nomination. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hello everyone. I created the article and nominated it for GA status. The initial GAN was reviewed by Vesper, passed and subsequently made a GA. I have just been made aware that Vesper a suspected vandal under a sockpuppet investigation and thus the initial GAR is likely illegitimate. I concur with the above statements in that the intial GAR was likely rushed, and I appreciate the new feedback given for this reassessment. Users have given suggestions to resolve those concerns, so I will follow those suggestions to improve the article and keep its GA status. Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, this discussion and {{GAR}} may well be moot by the day's end. However, the initial review was grossly inadequate and should be archived with a note in article history. Ditto this review and the article should go back in the queue with a new GAN with the date of the original nomination. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- After all this... Be advised of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Godsstone, which will likely moot this whole thing. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: I agree I went a different route and focussed on the criteria that I can determine passed/failed quickly. With a neutrality example ""Castor and Schoen also plan to deny" and the two [needs expansion] tags for broadness, I think they can be connected to your findings of up to date inaccuracies. Thank you for finding the out of date issues :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thinking about this further, I think this GAR is a case of missing the problematic forest for the not-that-concerning trees. MrLinkinPark has looked for quite minute objections while overlooking the much more significant inssues with completeness and up-to-dateness, but thereby, I think, arrived at the right conclusion for the entirely wrong set of reasons. So, with the strongest possible disagreement with the stated rationale, I strongly concur that this shouldn't be a GA. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've made the changes. In the course of doing so, I noticed something I consider significantly more of an issue than anything cited above, which is the accumulation of "X might happen in the future" content that was never removed when X actually did or didn't happen. I removed much of that, but in the process noted that, while the Trump–Raffensperger phone call was one of the reasons for his impeachment, the article does not mention it once in its description of the trial. That, to me, is a pretty glaring omission. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Based on WP:RSP I'm not sure that history.com and Business Insider are good sources for this subject. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Another note: Philip Samuel was temporarily blocked today for some copyvio issues so I hope that anyone who reviews the article in future will carefully evaluate for any close paraphrasing or copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)