Talk:Trump 101

Satisfies WP:NBOOK per Criteria (1) and (5)

Satisfies WP:NBOOK per Criteria (1) and (5).

1. Covered by multiple secondary sources.

5. Author is credited as President of the United States.

Sagecandor (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trump 101/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall

In this edit, I've done some copyediting and made other minor changes, mostly to address clunkiness of the prose. If you disagree with any of the changes, reply here and we can figure out a compromise.

Changes that are not strictly part of the GA criteria, but that I think would improve the article, are marked as optional.

Infobox

• Genre is (according to the template documentation) for fiction, so this should be removed.
• (Optional) For media type, can we say that the original was a hardcover book, and there are also audiobook and e-book versions?
• (Optional) The audio_read_by parameter can be added (Alan Sklar).
• (Optional) Preceded/followed by doesn't apply here as this is not a series of books.
• The alt text serves no purpose if it duplicates the caption (see WP:Alt text). This should be changed to describe the book cover (black background, Trump dressed in suit etc.) briefly.

Contents summary

• Is the exact chapter number 24? We can say this if it's true, even if the cited reference doesn't (with the book itself as a primary source).
• Can we rename this section "Contents"? That seems more concise to me (I think it's clear that the section is only a summary).
• "Trump's own autobiography" – what book is this referring to? Trump: The Art of the Deal? (If so, say that instead.)

Composition and publication

• When Trump's debt in the 90s is discussed, I think it's worth putting in some numbers – it seems to be a figure of about $9 billion in the books, and as I understand the situation, Trump's assertion is that he doesn't know the exact number, but it's "billions".
• (Optional) The OCLC/ASIN numbers in refs #33-44 are useful, but I think it would be better to have full citations like for the first edition ref (#32).
• Is there any information about how many sales the book got, or how much money Trump received, in any years prior to 2016 (particularly 2006/2007)?
• Reference #9 alleges that "He [Trump] Doesn't Seem To Have Read His Own Books", which could be mentioned (with the editorial comment "Jason Linkins of Huffington Post claims that...") here or under reception.

Reception

• The Washington Post, Politico, and CNN called the work a "Trump University book". – What does this mean? If it just means "book owned by / written for Trump University", then this has already been discussed in the previous section. I don't think from the context it means anything else, and it does not seem like substantial critical commentary. (Remove it from here and from the lead.)
• However, the last of these sources criticises Trump for "ignoring his own advice", which is commentary on the book and could be mentioned in the Reception section.
• I think reference #11 can be removed; it just repeats the CNN reference (#12). Reference #13 (Daily Kos) does the same (and I can't see where it explicitly "negatively characterized the utility of the work", as is claimed, so this sentence can be removed).
• The sexism quote ranks #2 on a Huffington Post article cited (ref #19).
• Mention the commentary on sexism (and the quote's position at #1/#2 on Trump sexism compilations) in the lead.

These are some suggestions for additional sources; use any that you think are substantial or relevant enough:

• This source could be useful – it brings up the hypocritical advice quote again, as well as criticising one on effort vs. achievement.
• This source (already used in the article; ref #2) talks about a quote from the book exemplifying Trump's frame of thought (on the subject of risk).
• This source calls the book "one of his lesser-known works" and says it "was meant to serve as a bible for budding entrepreneurs hoping to achieve the same level of prosperity as the New York billionaire".

The Reception section seems quite short, though this may be all that can be done if there are no more reviews that exist. In fact, the article as a whole is fairly small, so if there's anything more to say about the book then this would help satisfy criterion #3(a). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: are you planning to fix these issues? I'm officially putting the article  On hold now, so if I don't hear anything in the next 7 days then I'll fail the article. If you need more time for whatever reason, just say so. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 23:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail the article as it does not meet the GA criteria at the moment and there has been no progress or response in the 12 days since the review began. Please feel free to message me if you have any questions about my comments above, and to renominate the article once those issues have been addressed. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Though the review is over, I've carried out some of these changes myself, and struck them. The rest could still be made to improve the article. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I am archiving this review, but wanted to make sure you saw in case you plan to re-nominate. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.