Talk:Melania Trump/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 22:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 09:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to review this. I will do it piecemeal. And if you don't mind, I might make the odd minor edit straight away, should I encounter one. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thebiguglyalien, sorry for the delay, but I have finished.

I do not believe this article meets the criteria yet. Main issues:

• too many claims that seem to violate the WP:BLP. See which ones particularly in my comments below, tagged with BLP.
• confusing ways to refer to Melania. Sometimes it is Trump (e.g., The case was decided in Trump's favor, and the amount to be paid to her), sometimes Melania Trump, mostly Melania. And then there are cases when Trump refers to Donald, even after wedding (e.g., "According to Trump, their passive relationship suited him"). I agree it is difficult. I propose the following:

• In the lead, the name use is fine up until marriage to Donald. First, the name change to Melania Trump should be made more obvious, either by explicit statement or how it is in body ("The Trumps"). Second, for the rest of the lead, just use Melania
• In the body text, from marrying Donald onwards, like FAC Edith Roosevelt does, use first name consistently, do not switch.
• Captions: use Melania Trump consistently from marriage onwards
• From marriage onwards, never use Trump to refer to Donald, use Donald (cf. Theodore in FAC Edith Roosevelt)

• One case of unsourced material: Her father denied paternity of the boy, even after it was confirmed by a paternity test.

I'm happy to work with you to see if we can get this to pass, instead of me failing it directly now. I would like to get access to sources though, which I believe you can arrange, right?

I've reworked the names to address the MOS:SAMESURNAME issue, using the same format that I used in Edith Roosevelt's article (which I've come to believe is the least confusing way to do it). I figured out which citation got dropped and added it to the uncited sentence. I've also sent you an email with the way to request access to the sources (I don't think Wikipedia wants people to post forms and the like directly). I'll get to the comments below shortly. And thank you for the extra detail, this article is one of the main ones I'm looking at for FAC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments (not all needed for GA, but given your First Ladies FA project, I just commented on anything, so feel free to ignore):

• in the lead, is there a reason why second instance of fashion model is linked and not the first?
  • In short, because this is a high traffic article and things get moved around a lot in the lead. It's a risk I knew going in. Fixed.
• she traveled to Milan and Paris to seek modeling work until --> because of the until, I read this as something that happened multiple times. Is that so? Or should it read "stayed"?
  • changed "until" to "before"
• They began dating, and she began a --> repetition
  • Changes to "Melania and Donald began dating shortly afterward"
• a more lavish lifestyle --> where in the body text does this come from? and even: do we really need this in the lead?
  • Fixed per above.
• she responded to the Access Hollywood tape --> how?
  • Switched to "defended". It's a little reductive, but it's accurate to the public side of things.
• causing a rivalry between the two --> do we need this in the lead? BLP. Perhaps we first resolve the rivalry issue in the body of text and then come back here.
  • Probably not important enough for the lead either way. Removed.
• 2018 saw several --> In 2018, she ... as per MOS:NUMNOTES
  • Rearranged
• what about the Siena College Research Institute survey? Did you leave that out of lead on purpose or should it get a mention in the lead?
  • I don't remember my thought process at this point, but I'd be inclined to leave it out of the lead. It's only one poll, and it's recent.
• As a child, Knavs and other children --> As a child, Knavs, like other children
  • Fixed.
• At the age of fifteen, Knavs moved to Ljubljana to attend the Secondary School for Design and Photography, attending the school until her graduation at nineteen.[19] She made the long commute from her hometown to the capital and back each day by train. --> so did she move or commute?
  • Looks like moving was mentioned twice, before and after. I rearranged it so it's all chronological now.
• who was on a scouting trip in Europe --> makes it look like this is about Donald Trump. Some rejigging perhaps? Perhaps Knauss modeled for fashion houses in Paris and Milan, where in 1995 she met Metropolitan Models co-owner Paolo Zampolli, who was on a scouting trip in Europe.[13] He was a friend of her future husband Donald Trump. Zampolli became one of the few people who were involved in Knauss's life for a long time.
  • Fixed.
• Once she arrived in the United States --> Once she resided in the United States
  • Fixed.
• first major gig --> gig does not strike me as WP tone of voice. I may be wrong of course
  • I believe it's considered a technical term in this sort of field, but I kind of agree. I replaced it with "job".
• others in the industry have said rumors --> do we want to say this? Is this a place for rumors? BLP
  • When their relationship began (and whether they're honest about it) is a subject of dispute. I agree this should change from how it's currently written, but I'm not sure in what direction right now.
    • How about something like this Mary Jordan wrote in her biography of Melania that ...
      • Done.
• at the time he had a reputation --> do we have reliable sources for this? Looks like quite a contentious statement, so we should be careful according to BLP
  • I don't know if I'd consider it contentious, but it's not terribly relevant anyway. Removed.
• in the January edition of GQ magazine --> add the year
  • Done.
• Knauss was more compatible with Trump than his previous wives, as she did not have the ambition of his first wife and did not cause public drama like his second wife --> that is quite a matter of fact statement. Better if it can be attributed to someone, or else drop it altogether. See BLP
  • Removed. I think there's some room for why he was interested in Melania's type specifically, but it's hard to put it in an "objective" way.
• Preston Bailey --> is this person notable enough to warrant a page?
  • Unlinked, can always be relinked later if necessary.
• she did not know about the women --> BLP: are we sure to state this as a fact? Better would be "she has said she did not know"
  • The source's exact text is Until the 2016 campaign was underway, Melania did not realize the extent of his philandering, according to three people close to the couple. Thoughts?
    • I would attribute it to Jordan again
      • Done.
• Besides her American citizenship, both she and her son maintain dual citizenship in Slovenia --> Both she and her son maintain dual citizenship, both in the United States and Slovenia
  • Fixed (also switched the pronouns to their names)
• less expensive jewelry --> less than what?
  • "low cost" or "cheap" would be more accurate, but both of those feel like they have a negative connotation. Affordable would also work, but that sounds promotional.
• introduced a line of caviar-infused --> could there be an alternative to introduce, as to distinguish it from the word launch in the next line? Maybe "announced"?
  • Went with "developed", if you think that works? Could also used "planned" or something similar
• Melania eventually ended the production of her jewelry brand. --> when?
  • The source just says that it no longer existed when the 2016 campaign was ongoing. I've removed it for now, since it doesn't really add anything.
• She did not get along as well with Pence's wife, Karen Pence, with whom she had little in common --> can we attribute this to someone? BLP
  • Anonymous source, removed.
• More scandalous nude images --> just stick to facts: More nude images
  • Fixed.
• An anonymous person who was with Donald when the news broke reported that "red was coming up his neck to his ears". --> BLP I don't think we should be quoting an anonymous person
  • Aww man, I really liked the vivid illustration this added. But I agree. Removed.
• The inauguration of Donald Trump took place on January 20, 2017.[153] After her husband was elected president, she announced that she would not move to Washington, D.C. with him --> After the inauguration of Donald as president on January 20, 2017, Melania announced that she would not move to Washington, D.C. with him
  • Reworded.
• She was also the first Catholic to live in the White House since President John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline and was the second Catholic first lady of the United States --> I would just simply say She was also the second Catholic first lady of the United States to live in the White House, after Jacqueline Kennedy.
  • Changed.
• The first lady's absence caused --> Melania's absence from the White House caused
  • Changed.
• This was part of a larger rivalry that developed between the two as they both engaged in activity typically in the first lady's purview. --> BLP. Quite the statement, I suggest we drop it or else we back it up with a few more, independent sources.
  • Removed.
• After Ivanka organized a screening of Finding Dory in the White House, Melania required that they needed permission before entering the residential area of the building --> I don't have access to the source, so I can't tell, but is this the extent of the rivalry? Or is there more?
  • Removed. Even without considering that it's only relevant in the context of the rivalry bit, it's not that big of a detail either way.
• the administration's staff grew unhappy --> BLP. I don't have access to this source but that is quite a sweeping statement, including all of the staff
  • Changed it to "members of the administration's staff" and named Stephanie Winston Wolkoff per the Washington Post source. The Jordan source says "a few of Trump's pals" and mentions Tom Barrack by name but says he "was overheard" so I didn't add him to the article.
• among the people in New York --> BLP again, too sweeping I think
  • Would it be better if I said "among many of the people in New York", or does that cross the threshold into WP:WEASEL? The sources broadly describe the frustrations of New Yorkers.
    • Many of the people is better, yes
      • Done.
• Reid had been unpopular with the staff--> BLP. all of them?
  • The source says "she had heard enough stories to understand that the chief usher was not well liked or well respected by the staff" and "the move actually made her popular inside the White House". Should I qualify it with "broadly unpopular" or something similar?
    • Yes, I like that
      • Done.
• her usual stoic demeanor --> BLP. do we need this? If so, multiple sources required
  • Is this the whole sentence or just that she has a "stoic demeanor"? For reference, the source says "she almost always lights up around kids. It's one of the few times she lets her guard down, when that Slovenian stoicism melts away" and "Melania genuinely enjoys spending time around children. Her whole demeanor changes". It's also currently attributed in the article.
    • I was mistaken, we have attribution. Keep it.
• when her husband was well known for attacking people online --> BLP. again, can we back this up firmly?
  • I don't think it will be an issue verifying this further if needed, but for now I've brought up the Bennett source to join the Jordan source.
• The first lady's office responded that spouses such as her and Donald communicate differently --> there is something confusing here but I can't put my finger on it
  • Replaced with "spouses can have different communication styles"
• Her chief of staff Lindsay Reynolds was removed, with her responsibilities going to Melania's --> bit jarring with two "her"s refering to different people and a Melania thrown in as well
  • Switched the first "her" to "Melania's"
• Much of what she posted directly contradicted what her husband posted, as he discouraged many of the recommended practices.[257] --> BLP. I'd like a few more sources here to back up the "Much" and the "many"
  • Added a Washington Post source.
• against Wolkoff --> should that not be Winston Wolkoff, like in previous sentence?
  • Yes, fixed.
• Despite Donald Trump's loss of the 2020 election --> perhaps for good measure add this source:
  • Added.
• dressed in terrycloth bathrobes --> sounds a bit like unnecessary detail
  • Removed.
• overseen through her tenure.[193] Melania was overseeing --> oversee repetition
  • Changed "overseeing" to "managing"
• reluctant companion to her husband or as a woman who has no independence of her own --> BLP more sources please
  • This is followed up by the next sentence with more sources, I combined them all into one grouping.
• rumors that she had a secret animosity toward her husband --> BLP can we be specific at least which credible sources, multiple, were publishing these rumors?
  • This isn't about "credible" rumors, it was her public image and the #FreeMelania phenomenon.
• as she took a more active role in the administration --> if this is true, then examples of that should be in the earlier sections
  • Reworded to emphasize image rather than activity.
• She is often seen as cold --> BLP multiple sources please
  • There are two sources confirming that this is how the public often sees her.
• Since the only previous foreign-born first lady had an American father, --> The use of "Since" here suggests some robust research into the public's reasoning. Did that really take place?
  • Restructured, though I'm not fully confident in the new wording.
• Her approval rating stood at 36–37% --> this looks like it is saying around 36 or 37%, which does not look like a negative number to me. So I'm confused.
  • That's a dash. To avoid any ambiguity, I've replaced it with "or".
    • I'm sorry I did not make myself clear: The previous sentence says she had a negative approval rating. This then turns out to be 36% or 37%, which is not a negative number. So now I am being forced to speculate: I guess 64 or 63% did not approve of her. Although normally there is a big chunk of people who say: don't care or don't know. This ABC News article does not use the term negative approval rating but instead uses weak
      • Okay, now I see. I've reworded to "Melania became the only candidate's spouse since polling began in 1988 to have a disapproval rating greater than their approval rating", though of course I'm open to other wordings if that still isn't clear. I thought maybe "net approval rating", but that might still cause the same confusion.

I'll look in detail at the sources at the end of the process. Glancing at them, they look good. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Edwininlondon, thanks again for looking over the article! I've replied to each point above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, my responses to the open issues are nested above. I shall shortly embark on sources. The images are fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Edwininlondon, I've addressed the remaining issues. Let me know if you have trouble accessing the sources or need excerpts for anything, but no rush! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, all fine. JUst the last few bits relating to sources:

• Many sources are Title Case, but many others are sentence case. Consistency needed as per WP:CITESTYLE
• 10: this is the only book citation using {{cite book|. Others use {{sfn. Needs to be consistent
• 285 seems to link to another article
• Looking at the PDF for 286, I'd say the title is simply Siena College First Ladies Poll
• Spotcheck: #8a 8d 8j 8m 10 169 219a 219b 219c 219d 219e are all fine

That's it then. Looking good otherwise. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Edwininlondon, I definitely should have caught the mistaken link. The rest of these are normally things I wouldn't worry about until FAC, but since there's a good chance that I'll nominate it there in the future, I got them all taken care of. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

All fine. Promoting to GA now. Nice work and good luck at FAC. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)