246:. 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. ―
154:
171:
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
335:
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).
330:
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
369:
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.
347:
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
360:
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
339:
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
343:
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
200:. 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.
309:
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
351:
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).
226:
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.
172:
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,
396:
This will probably have to go through the bureaucratic process (talk page discussion) before being implemented, but thank you very much for your comments!
76:
422:
365:, 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
126:
432:
207:
370:
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,
122:
366:
107:
69:
462:
336:
It's also received much less media attention than some other listed aspects, so overall, it may be a candidate for removal.
243:
99:
425:(including from me), but there's been some resistance that the body isn't updated enough for the lede to feature it.
323:
314:
62:
50:
421:
does mention the withdrawal of troops in
Northern Syria. It's at the end of the 2nd last paragraph. On issue 4,
438:
348:
Trump's wall and other immigration issues, I could see some of the language from there being brought over here.
213:
331:
hope some of these points may serve as inspiration for proposals for those of you with remaining energy.
44:
17:
443:
405:
388:
298:
278:
261:
235:
218:
190:
427:
401:
274:
231:
223:
202:
186:
322:
I did a comparative review of how the intro to this article covers Trump's presidency versus how
293:
256:
244:
this recent intelligent, articulate, and AGF suggestion for a review of the article's neutrality
115:
327:
397:
270:
227:
197:
182:
456:
362:
284:
266:
247:
418:
310:
161:
92:
412:
393:
376:
196:
I'm a regular editor of the article, weighing in on one particular point,
283:
I wasn't referring to you, you weren't the OP (original poster) there. ―
326:
does so. Here are my takeaways, reflecting mostly topics that get more
417:- thanks for reviewing and weighing in. On issue 3, the lede of
148:
242:
As background, part of what precipitates this (I think) is
317:
which I think might be useful here, so I'll quote myself:
269:
I haven't moved on, I've just been busy at work (IRL).
141:
134:
103:
423:
we've discussed it, we've had proposals to add things
320:
70:
8:
77:
63:
32:
35:
7:
357:Hopefully it's not too out of date.
24:
152:
367:ants are pulling sideways on it
1:
177:Actually, I think V is fine.
164:discussion has been closed.
479:
324:Presidency of Donald Trump
315:Presidency of Donald Trump
191:02:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
444:14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
406:02:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
389:03:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
299:06:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
279:02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
262:05:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
236:05:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
219:04:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
354:
463:May 2020 peer reviews
18:Knowledge:Peer review
386:
374:
178:
169:
168:
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
470:
435:
430:
416:
387:
384:
383:
381:
372:
296:
291:
259:
254:
210:
205:
176:
156:
155:
149:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
478:
477:
473:
472:
471:
469:
468:
467:
453:
452:
433:
428:
410:
377:
375:
371:
294:
285:
257:
248:
208:
203:
153:
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
476:
474:
466:
465:
455:
454:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
358:
353:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
319:
318:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
240:
239:
238:
224:Starship.paint
167:
166:
157:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
475:
464:
461:
460:
458:
445:
442:
440:
436:
431:
424:
420:
414:
409:
408:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
391:
390:
382:
380:
368:
364:
363:Ronald Reagan
359:
356:
355:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
316:
312:
308:
307:
300:
297:
292:
290:
289:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
263:
260:
255:
253:
252:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:
221:
220:
217:
215:
211:
206:
199:
195:
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
179:
175:
165:
163:
158:
151:
150:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
426:
419:Donald Trump
378:
321:
311:Donald Trump
287:
286:
250:
249:
201:
180:
173:
170:
159:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
28:Donald Trump
27:
162:peer review
104:visual edit
398:Mgasparin
328:WP:WEIGHT
271:Mgasparin
228:Mgasparin
198:Mgasparin
183:Mgasparin
457:Category
429:starship
288:Mandruss
267:Mandruss
251:Mandruss
204:starship
181:Thanks,
174:V, etc.
340:listed.
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
434:.paint
209:.paint
344:item.
160:This
136:Watch
16:<
439:talk
413:Sdkb
402:talk
394:Sdkb
379:Sdkb
373:{{u|
313:and
275:talk
232:talk
214:talk
187:talk
123:edit
100:edit
459::
404:)
385:}}
277:)
234:)
189:)
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
441:)
437:(
415::
411:@
400:(
295:☎
273:(
258:☎
230:(
216:)
212:(
185:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.