Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2017 [1].

Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)[edit]

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) and Another Believer (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Donald Trump", the third episode in the third season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. In it, John Oliver describes Donald Trump's business dealings and behavior, and then proceeds to criticize it. He even calls Trump "Drumpf", a term that went viral immediately after the segment aired. This episode was first released a year and a half ago. Although it didn't work like Oliver intended, since obviously Trump is the U.S. President, it's still the most popular episode that LWT has ever released. Also, it's been a Good Article since May of last year. So, as Oliver would say, please enjoy. epicgenius (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • The Media data and Non-free use rationale box for the infobox image is not completed, specifically the "Not replaceable with free media because" and the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parts.  Done
  • The lead should include some information regarding the "Name change timing dispute" section, and I would imagine more parts from the "Reception and aftermath" section could be included as a well, specifically critics' response and Oliver's eventual decision to not use the joke anymore. I am suggesting this as the lead should be a comprehensive overview of the entire article.  Done
  • I would imagine that the Frederick Trump image would need a more descriptive caption other than just the name and the link.  Done
  • Is the Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? link appropriate for the "See also" section. Does it directly link to this segment or explicitly reference it?  Done, removed.

Overall, wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I hope you both have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Aoba47: Thank you for your comments. I have resolved all the issues you have brought up. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your prompt responses. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Thank you for your support vote, I appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Frederick_Friedrich_Trump_2.jpg: when/where was this first published, and what was the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: As per the documentation, the image was taken before 1923, which exempts the image from the "author's death plus 70 years" rule per COM:PD. Frederick Trump died in 1918 and such a photo of him could not have been made posthumously, though I'll look for the original source. The original shows up in this ancestry.com search. epicgenius (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • COM:PD states that works are PD in the US if published before 1923, not simply created. Further, for an image to be hosted on Commons, it must also be PD in its country of origin, and depending what that was the life+70 rule may apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll take a look at the publication date and location. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to Ancestry.com, it was originally published in 1918 in the US. The page is paywalled, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I've added 2 new images and removed the Frederick Trump image. Could you kindly review the article's images again? epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 1989[edit]

  • "also started a controversy on" How about started debates on? Controversy isn't the right word.  Done
  • I would put square brackets around the ... part.  Done
  • "traffics in the very xenophobia that is Trump's sick stock in trade" You're repeating yourself in the seventh paragraph.  Done

When my concerns are addressed, I'll check back. -- 1989 20:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: I've fixed all of the issues you've raised above. Thank you for your feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Epicgenius: When you get a chance, could you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Ball (manga)/archive1? -- 1989 18:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Thanks for the support. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. -- 1989 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: How do I request a source review? epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place a request in the dedicated section at the top of WT:FAC, and someone should pick it up relatively quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from co-nominator: I will be on vacation until August 20, so I might take a while to reply to any comments made until then. epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Actually, my vacation is now over and I will be able to resolve all issues. epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Should I be concerned about this nomination? It's been inactive for a few weeks. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but OTOH it's only been open a little over a month and has attracted some commentary and support so I wouldn't panic -- Sarastro1 has put it in the "FAC urgents" list (top right of WT:FAC) so hopefully we'll get some more eyes soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to second that, there is no immediate danger and once we put it into the urgents, we usually leave it for at least a couple more weeks. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Thanks again. epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by SounderBruce
  • Author names are not consistent. Seeing several instances of "Last, First" in addition to the "First Last" majority  Done (all changed to last, first.(
  • Include OCLC numbers for all ISSN and ISBN citations.  Done
  • Ref 37 needs to use "The Washington Post" to match other citations  Done
  • Ref 39 needs a translated title  Done
  • Ref 49 needs ISBN and OCLC  Done
  • Some of the publishers don't need to be listed (e.g. Boston Globe Media LLC after Boston Globe)  Done
  • Concerns on the "high quality" nature of some sources, especially smaller blog sites. Some are also problematic when it comes to their verifiability. Listing a few:
    • Ref 11: What makes Inquisitr reliable and high quality? Seems like a standard clickbait site.  Done
    • Ref 17: JD Supra seems like a run-of-the-mill blog startup.  Done
    • Ref 24: International Business Times, like Inquisitr, comes up often as clickbait. Do they have editorial oversight?  Done
      • Ref 40 also points to IBT and needs to be replaced.
    • Ref 27: Tech Times, again, seems like more clickbait.  Done
    • Ref 32: Bustle doesn't seem like a place with standout journalistic standards.
    • Ref 40: Snopes? Really?

**Ref 47 and 48: FamilySearch and About.com do not seem like reliable sources.

Article looks pretty solid on prose and grammar, otherwise. SounderBruce 02:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thank you for the source review. I'll look at these tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I've fixed almost all of them. The only reason I cite Snopes, FamilySearch, and About.com is precisely because they are in disagreement with each other, and are thus probably not reliable. I use them solely for comparison purposes, and not as a definitive fact. I am confused about Snopes, so if you don't mind explaining why it is not reliable, I would appreciate it very much. epicgenius (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll retract my concerns about FamilySearch and About.com, given that they are being used for comparison and they seem to be sourced from reputable authorities. I would recommend changing the FamilySearch reference to cite the record itself (with a via field, linking to FamilySearch), which is readily available on the web page. As for Snopes, it is a self-published source and, while recognized by some media outlets, fails to meet the high-quality threshold based on their lack of recognized expert contributors.
Your new sources need to be harmonized (e.g. date formats and using the MIT name instead of the website URL in the work field). Just need to clean up the Bustle, Snopes, and IBT sources and I can call this good to go. SounderBruce 05:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Snopes, IBT, and Bustle; thank you for pointing these out. I don't know what you mean by changing the FamilySearch to cite the record itself. The record URL, (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NCR1-KF8), is already on the page. Additionally I can't add "via" to the {{cite web}} template there. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks all good now. I will support this nomination based on the source review above. The FamilySearch thing can be left alone, but citing the "Deutschland Geburten und Taufen" record directly would help make it clearer that it comes from a German state record and not FamilySearch themselves. SounderBruce 21:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Thank you very much for the source review; I appreciate it. FamilySearch is also  Done by the way. epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC) epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SounderBruce. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments TJW[edit]

  • Is it customary to record patent application documents in all caps? I pretty regularly deshout any title regardless. Maybe this is an exception.
  • In the footnote: originates with one Hanns Drumpf recorded in Kallstadt in 1608 it seems intuitively like there should either one or two commas here, either after "Drumpf" or both before and after the full name.  Done (One is correct, after the name.)
  • I cropped up File:U.S. Immigration records mentioning Friedr Trumpf (cropped).jpg so that it's centered with less empty space in the margins. Personally, I would use it rather than the uncropped version. I also cobbled up File:U.S. Immigration records mentioning Friedr Trumpf - Friedr. Trumpf isolated.jpg if you would like to use it somehow. I cleaned up a lot, but unfortunately not all of the noise.  Done (And I like your version better.)
  • WLs - xenophobic, Gwenda Blair (possible redlink?),  Done
  • Un-WL - onomatopoeic ... Don't use WLs in direct quotes.  Done
  • YouTube alone, making it Last Week Tonight's most popular segment posted to YouTube Maybe find some way to avoid restating "youtube"  Done (replaced second "YouTube" with "there")
  • was delivered by John Oliver - Was it delivered? Do they tape the same day they air?
  • Oliver created a hashtag - Do you create a hashtag or do you coin one? Honest question.  Done

Mostly minor stuff. But it looks good overall. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for the review. I've resolved almost all the issues you've brought up, except the one about the "delivery" because it is indeed a live taping. (Or at least it's in front of the audience and taped on the same day as it airs.) epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Timothyjosephwood, for the review, and Epicgenius, for addressing these concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Timothyjosephwood: Could you kindly make a note about whether you support, oppose, or have further feedback for this nomination? It would be appreciated since I don't know if you're still concerned about the "episode delivery" phrasing. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not. I looked it up and it seems they record the same day. I intended to look over it a second time, but I wouldn't want that to seem to the coordinators like I had particular misgivings, because I don't. Anyway, I'm a pretty active editor. If I have anything else or not I'll weigh in tomorrow. TimothyJosephWood 01:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional random things, mostly lead related:

  • It aired on February 28, 2016 - Probably first aired or originally aired? Presumably it has or will air again.  Done (it continuously airs on YouTube, technically, but February 28, 2016 was the first airing)
  • Upon the segment's initial release, it went - Seems simpler to just say "The segment went viral..."  Done
  • Google Searches - I believe in this usage this is a common noun and should be lowercase.  Done
  • The segment started a debate - I feel like this could be more specific. "Public debate" at the very least. The issue is not that it started a debate, but that it started a debate that was somehow important, and/or among somehow important people.  Done
  • surpassed those for "Ted Cruz" and "Marco Rubio" - Maybe someone can correct me, but I'm not sure this needs scare quotes. It's not really talking about the terms as terms; it's talking about them as names identifying particular people who are relevant because of their candidacy.  Done (I just realized that neither Cruz nor Rubio were being searched as terms, unlike our nonexistent Oliver creation, Donald Drumpf. So thank you for that.)
TimothyJosephWood 16:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't really see any other outstanding issues, at least with my limited experience at FAC. In fine to support. TimothyJosephWood 11:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for your support.Even though it is becoming trite right now, I will say that I really appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bilorv
Resolved suggestions
  • Can you add an external link to HBO's website — either the episode or the segment?  Done
  • I think the external YouTube (or HBO) link to the actual segment is very important, and should be highlighted more (most readers will miss it, hidden under the External links section). I suggest using {{External media}} in the Episode summary section.  Done
  • HBO seems refer to the episodes by their overall position, rather than season and position. It is mentioned three times that the segment is from S3E3 (infobox, lead, episode summary) – in at least one of those places, can it be mentioned that it is from the 62nd episode overall?  Done (in the lead)
  • Under Episode summary: "that despite Trump's statement to the contrary, the related lawsuits were still pending". Does this mean related to Trump University? In what way?
    • Removed, since it is not mentioned in the episode. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Episode summary, from "Such rhetoric has been criticized ever since Trump's July 2015 campaign announcement" to "with Trump advocating a ban on Muslims seeking to enter the United States following a series of terror attacks perpetrated by members and sympathizers of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." Where is this sourced to? The Times article (ref #10) just seems to contain a transcript of his campaign announcement, while the refs at the end of the paragraph (#2, #9) do not cover this content (they reference the following sentences). Unless this was part of Oliver's criticism, which I missed when re-watching the segment, this violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH if no journalist or reliable source has directly linked prior criticism of Trump's xenophobia to the parts of the LWT segment mentioning Duke.
  • In Reception and Aftermath (or earlier in the article), can the cap manufacturer be named? I can't read more than half of ref #30 as it's behind a paywall, but it seems to be Unionwear.  Done
  • The Rolling Stone interview with Oliver (ref #33) mentions that the segment premiered on the night of the Oscars, and therefore "We were not doing that with the sense that it would become bigger than our show normally is". I think this is a relevant fact to mention somewhere in the article.  Done
  • The About.com link (ref #45) seems to redirect to a page on thoughtco.com, though it seems from [2] that About.com has been renamed Dotdash, and ThoughtCo is part of the brand, and the whole thing is owned by IAC. Confusing. I would change the text in the body to read something like "while a genealogist at ThoughtCo (at the time, About.com)" and update the reference to include parameters |work=[[Dotdash]] and |publisher=[[IAC (company)|IAC]].  Done
  • Note that I have made small formatting changes myself in this edit.

Other than this, the article is very good. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at this with a view to promotion, but ended up copy-editing a little more than I intended, so it is probably best that I recuse as coordinator. I've no objections on prose to this being promoted, but I wonder if we are a little too heavy on the quotes? I think a few of them could stand being paraphrased. I may have another look if this isn't promoted in the next day or two, and will possibly support this then. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thanks for taking a look. The article has been reviewed by quite a few editors, and has received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Thanks for your improvements, and do let us know if you have other specific concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er... OK. I'm quite aware of the other reviews, and as I say, I have no objections to promotion here, this was more of a note for the other coordinator. My point about the heavy use of quotes stands; I think some of them could stand paraphrasing, but I'm not opposing on this. Nevertheless, I know of editors who have a problem with over-quotation. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Thanks for the feedback and copyedits. I am going to paraphrase some of the non-important quotes from other commentators. However, I'll probably end up leaving most of Oliver's quotes since they are supported by the citations, and also for emphasis. epicgenius (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I had another look, and now that the quotes have been trimmed, I'm happy to fully support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow, impressive work in making a great article out of a British man yelling at us on how the world is ending for half an hour. And seeing this having a shot at appearing in the main page before the article on Trump himself is a hilarious thought. igordebraga ≠ 02:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Donald_Trump_(Last_Week_Tonight)/archive1&oldid=802255567"