Talk:Susanne Craig

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:Susanne Craig/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lisha2037 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 00:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll go ahead and get started on this. My earliest GA nominations turned out to be rather frustrating, so I can empathize. I like to get everything put together all at once, so I'll post the full review within the next couple days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s a learning experience for all. I’m a former journalist and now work in engineering but even then Wikipedia’s rules and guides can be overwhelming, especially as there is no formal instruction on it. I’ve definitely learned a lot from my mistakes - which I think is the case for everyone here.

if you need clarification on anything let me know. Lisha2037 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Also this is random. I’m going to Susanne’s book signing on the 15th and will definitely have the chance to talk to her. I don’t want to mention to her that I am editing her Wikipedia article but want to ask her if she can provide better images to illustrate her articles. Is that unethical? Lisha2037 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Images can be tricky, but yeah, it's not uncommon for Wikipedians to get them by asking. You'd either need to take one of her yourself (in which case you would own the rights to it and could upload it without issue), or you would need to get her to release an image through a Creative Commons license (which has specific steps that need to be followed). It's a bit beyond my area of expertise, but the people over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions might be able to give you more information. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Lisha2037, I've looked over the article. My main concern right now is the sourcing. Some of the cited sources don't fully line up with the sentences preceding them, and there are several that should probably be swapped out for better ones. This is a fairly demanding fix, so I'll leave it to you whether you want to try to get it done this week, or if you want to close the review so you can take your time and renominate in the future. There are also some prose and neutrality issues that I've listed below. Regarding the image, the one in the article was VRT-approved last month, which means she was already in contact with the site and approved that one, so getting another won't be necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I can definitely work on these in the next few days. I’ll ping you once done. I see there’s not a reply button after every bullet button - so would you want me to click on the edit source button and reply that way (numbered, and bull, and referring to section name) OR click on the reply button at the bottom and do the same but as one response rather then multiple ones. Whatever works best for you. Lisha2037 (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! The reply button only shows up if someone signs a post, which I didn't do for each bullet point. The most common way to reply in a review is to insert a second level bullet point.

* So if I wrote this bullet point...

** ...then you would write this directly below the bullet point.

* Then my next bullet point would be here.

But really the important thing is that I know what specifically you're referring to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien I have worked on your comments. Some new sources have been added. Two commets need some clarification. Lisha2037 (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Lisha2037, I went over the changes and left some notes below. I also sectioned out this review so it's easier to see what's where. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Review

General:

• This is more of a nitpick than a strict GA requirement, but articles read better when the subject is referred to by name the first time they're mentioned in a new paragraph.
• There are a few times where two blue links are adjacent to each other, which can make navigation difficult.
• A few places where the isn't a space between two sentences.
• Make sure to use straight quotation marks (') instead of curly ones (’). (MOS:APOSTROPHE)
  • I have modified the article based of this but not sure what is the solution to deal with the adjacent blue links.

Lead:

• notably revealing – "Notably" is editorializing. If it's in the article, then we can assume it's notable.
  • Removed notably
• that exposed the president's inheritance of hundreds of millions from his father through questionable tax practices. – Contentious information about living people has to be treated very carefully on Wikipedia. To accuse someone of wrongdoing, we need very strong sourcing, and even then it should be written in a neutral, impartial manner. Right now, this is slightly loaded/sensationalistic.
  • Changed it to the reasoning given by the Pulitzer for her winning the prize.
• with her publishing her first book – Awkward phrasing
  • New sentence.
• and of New York State and New York City government and politics and currently serves as an on-air analyst for MSNBC – A lot of "and"s. On-air analyst can probably be its own sentence.
  • Changed the structure and broke the sentences.
• Try to avoid "currently", since that can make the article incorrect once circumstances change.
  • Removed.

Early life and education:

• The detail about Naheed Nenshi is probably unnecessary. It's very marginal trivia, and the source doesn't really support it. Especially when writing about a living person, we want the source to explicitly say what we're writing in the article. And when deciding whether to include something, it's better if it's mentioned in an independent source. If the journalists writing about her start mentioning that she's friends with the mayor, that's when we'd consider adding it to the article.
  • Ok I’ll take it out.

Career beginnings:

• and covered the North American Free Trade Agreement and Heinz's operations – Two "and"s in a row makes this sentence read awkwardly.
  • Took out the police reporter part. Unless you have another suggestion.
• After a one-month contract with The Financial Post – After signing it or completing it?
  • The CBC article says she she took on a one month contract with TFP that introduced her to business reporting. It does not say if she get extended the contract. So what I’m saying is that she completed the contract, after which she moved to TGAM. I rephrased it and broke it to two sentences to leave room to speculate if there was some time between those two positions.

The New York Times:

• I'm a bit of a stickler for WP:PROSELINE. Again, this isn't something you need to focus on too much for GA, but ideally it should read a little more smoothly than a timeline.
  • Should we add more about what she reported on?
• She was later promoted to New York City Hall bureau chief for coverage of the New York State government in 2013, moving to Albany, New York in 2014. – She was promoted in 2013, or she wrote the coverage in 2013? And was the move specifically because of the promotion? This should be rewritten so it's clearer.
  • She was promoted in 2013 and two secondary articles confirm that. Her NYT bio says she moved to Albany in 2014 ‘to change things up’ - and continued covering on state government. So she was a promoted but decided to move to a different part of NYC a year later. I rephrased it but I’m open to you suggesting a different phrase.
• Craig identified herself as the reporter who had received a portion of Trump's 1995 tax records in her mailbox – This implies that everyone knew somebody received the records in the mail, but no one knew who. Would it be more accurate to simply say that she had received them instead of saying she "identified herself"?
  • I guess what I was trying to imply is the story broke out, and it was big, but no one knew how they got access to Trump’s tax return from 21 years ago. Susanne then came out and said - it was me who got it in my mailbox. I’m rephrased it so let me know if that’s better.
• a 14,000 exposé – I see in the previous review that this was discussed. Was "14,000" supposed to be removed/replaced as well?
  • The second reference from a journalism school mentions that it was 14,000 and she has repeats this in various interviews. If you access the article you can see the word count adds up to that as well.
• Is Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father its own publication that happens to be hosted on the New York Times website, or is it a New York Times article? If it's an article, then the Times should be in italics while the article is in "quotes".
  • The Times was already in italics but I removed the italics from the name of the article. If I add the straight quotes it turns it italics so I added the curly ones which I know isn’t MOS. Can you tell me how to edit that?
• "exposing" is a non-neutral term. I suggest "saying" if this is something confirmed by the source, or "alleging" if it's not. Since the source is currently Craig herself, we should especially err on the side of caution. An independent source describing/analyzing her findings and reports would give us more flexibility and should be preferred.
  • Changed to demonstrating and added secondary source from Forbes.
• and his indictment and criminal trial – Which one?
  • Both.

Lucky Loser:

• Craig highlighted her intent to present a fact-based account – This could be read as agreeing with her that she's creating a fact-based account, but we have to stay neutral on that. Maybe something like "Craig said that her intention was to present a fact-based account"?
  • I changed the wording of this.
• For the rest of the "her intent" sentence, it needs to be made clear that these are her opinions, and we're not agreeing or disagreeing with them.
  • Rephrased.
• Craig’s sharp investigative lens and ability to transform complex financial records into compelling narratives – This should be attributed to the critics who believe this. Right now it sounds like Wikipedia is praising her. (MOS:PUFFERY)
  • Added.
• for exposing the realities behind Trump’s financial empire – Needs to be rewritten in an impartial tone.
  • Changed.
• Craig, however, has remained steadfast in defending the integrity of her work – This seems a little dramatic for an encyclopedia.
  • Reworded.

Personal life:

• This also seems like a minor detail, but it's not unreasonable to keep it since a secondary source felt it was significant enough to include. If it is kept, it would be an option to consolidate this section with "early life and education" to make it cleaner.
  • Ok I’ll keep it, but not sure if it should be moved to early life as I don’t know exactly when he became her brother-in-law. She’s a super private person so this is the only snippet of personal life I can find on her. I can tell you a lot from her Instagram but that’s a PS.

References:

• The article is too dependent on primary sources. They can be useful in some cases, often to establish basic facts, but sometimes they can do more harm than good (see WP:PRIMARY). The ones that need the most scrutiny are those that cite Craig herself, whether they be things she wrote, interviews she participated in, or sources that otherwise rely on her own words.
• The Mother Jones source describing the findings of Trump's activities is an opinion piece, so that's not going to be strong enough for any controversial claims or allegations, let alone those about a living person who's also a controversial political figure.
  • Added another source.
• The link to the YouTube source Velshi (2024) doesn't work. Either way, there's probably a textual source somewhere that supports this which could be used instead.
  • The previous editor told me to reformat the citation, but when I did it that way the url was giving me the red error showing something was broken/missing. I’ve replaced it.

Spot checks for accuracy and close paraphrasing:

• [6] Calgary Herald (2016) – Good. Optional, but it has some information about her personal reaction to sudden fame that could be added.
  • Should that be by the CH or personal life.
• [20] McFadden & Bailey (2016) – I don't see where this supports In subsequent television interviews, Craig identified herself. It just says that she was the person, it doesn't say anything about when she announced or published it, let alone that it was in subsequent television interviews.
  • Now that it’s a different sentence I think this reference makes more sense.
• [28] Allen (2024) – While "exclusive" implies that it's the first announcement, this source probably isn't enough to say she announced it the day of its publication. Similarly, I'm not going to say that the image caption doesn't confirm the publisher, but a source that says it explicitly would be much better. The source says September 10, not September 17 (and it would be more helpful to have a source after then saying that it was in fact published on a date). Where does this support twenty years' worth of Trump's confidential tax information?
  • That was the first and only article I can find discussing the future release of the book that’s not her twitter account. Are you saying I need to add another source? She announced it in February and the book was scheduled for Sept 10. The 17th is my mistake cause the book got delayed by a week but the 10th is when it was actually supposed to be published.

Other notes that are optional or don't require action:

• In my experience, having a bunch of citations verify different parts of a sentence can make it difficult to verify the whole thing. I personally try to keep WP:Text-source integrity and Wikipedia:Contort the citations in mind. But opinions differ on this; others will urge caution about getting too messy with the citations.
  • Yeah I noticed that with the NYT part. It’s also probably because this article had a different primary editor before me and we added citations differently.
• I don't see any immediate issues in this case, but be careful with sources that are connected to the subject. Her former school and workplace aren't going to be as reliable, but it should be okay here because they're only used for basic biographical facts instead of something controversial.
  • Yeah most of those sources mostly just provide biographical information on her that is confirmed in other articles as well

Further notes

• I made a few minor copyedits (Special:Diff/1251357038). Make sure to go over the article and check for any copyediting issues when working on a potential GA (but I admit I often forget to do this).
  • Thanks!
• What's supporting after winning the inaugural Edward Goff Penny Memorial Prize?
  • ‘She began on a summer contract, and after becoming the first recipient of the Edward Goff Penny Memorial Prize for young journalists in 1991 — an award that’s been won by several journalists who would later become well-known nationally — she was hired on at the Star.’
• the North American Free Trade Agreement and Heinz's operations in Leamington, Ontario – The source says this was a single story, but the article treats it like two different things she reported on
  • They are two different stories. One is about NAFTA and one is about the ketchup company.
    • The Windsor Star says Craig wrote about the newly enacted North American Free Trade agreement and its effect on H.J. Heinz’s tomato operations in Leamington (emphasis mine). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  You’re right I don’t know how I missed that. I edited it and now that’s it’s not a run on sentence I added that police reporting back in. Lisha2037 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• which could have allowed him to avoid paying income taxes for up to eighteen years – Could we get a stronger source on this? It's a big claim about a living person, but it's only sourced to Craig herself and to an interview.
  • I would say this is not a claim but rather a tax fact, as his net losses on his tax return will actually allow him to not pay taxes for that long. Do you have a suggestion for a source? News or tax breakdown?
    • Okay, I see what it's saying now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• that revealed the inner workings of Trump's financial practices and misleading statements about his self-made wealth and business empire. The most common form of financial crime reported was valuation fraud – The new source doesn't fully support this. It says that the Times and Craig alleged this, which is a good indication that we should probably use similar wording instead of stating it as fact. We can't be more confident than the source, especially when it's a contentious claim or its about a living person. I also don't see where it confirms valuation fraud, which is an accusation that needs a strong source.
  • I added allegedly and claimed to that paragraph. Valuation fraud also known as mortgage fraud is the most reported crime in the original story as it is a lot of trump’s inheritance from real estate loopholes set by his father. I added reported to clear it’s her reporting it and not us.
    • "Reported" still implies a statement of fact, and it's really only the Mother Jones source that's trying to present it as fact. I'd rather not have anything that depends solely on this source, so maybe we could simply say that they alleged he committed fraud, which is more in line with what the CBC source says. Sorry for nitpicking so much on this point, but as far as policy is concerned, alleged crimes by living people is basically the most important thing to get right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Took it out. Lisha2037 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Read the examples at WP:PROSELINE. Definitely add more information if there's something relevant that can be included, but really it just needs to be reorganized so it's written more like a summary than a list of annotated dates. You don't have to overthink it though; the GA criteria just require that it's clear and concise.
• The editor makes a distinction between a quotation mark (") versus two apostrophes (''). The apostrophes make it italic, but the quotation mark doesn't. I went ahead and swapped it out.
  • Thanks again.
• where she speaks about her research into Trump's finances, tax returns, and his indictment and criminal trial – I suggest removing this altogether. Neither source actually says that this is her role. Based on the sources, it's entirely possible she talks about other things.
  • I changed the wording to leave room open for the notion that she could be reporting on other topics (although she never has.)
• praised Craig for her sharp investigative lens and ability to transform complex financial records into compelling narratives – This still sounds like Wikipedia is agreeing that it's a fact. Could a specific opinion be attributed to a specific critic, or could it be rewritten in some other way so it's not presented as or implied to be a statement of fact?
  • Added quotes.
• While praised for the pursuit of truth behind Trump’s financial empire – One more instance where it should be rewritten for tone
  • Added by critics.
• It doesn't particularly matter where the information is, and whether it's under "personal life" or not. The important thing is that it's in there if you feel it's relevant.
• A source saying when the book was actually published would be the best option.
  • Added
    • I went ahead and swapped this out, using one of the sources in the article to confirm the release date. It would be good to say why the book was a week late if there's a source explaining that, but we don't need to worry about it right now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Lisha2037 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just as a general note, it's okay and even encouraged to rework the citations or other parts of the article that were there before, if you plan to submit it for GA. So don't worry about that if you were concerned about leaving it as it was.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien I have worked on all comments. Just a note that the curly quotations are the only option I have on my phone and computer so that’s why the straight ones never show up when I do work unless I copy paste it from another part of the article. Thanks. Lisha2037 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Lisha2037, we're just about good to go. I've replied to a few more points above (and I signed them so they stand out). All that's left at this point are Heinz, the valuation fraud allegation, and a little clean up in the section "The New York Times". For the latter, we only need to make sure it complies with MOS:PARA, which discourages starting a new paragraph for each sentence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien thanks for your work on this. I edited the first two accordingly and for the NYT section I combined the last two paragraphs/sentences into one paragraph. Lisha2037 (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2024 (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.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Susanne Craig was born in the same hospital as Ted Cruz a year apart?
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Lisha2037 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Lisha2037 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Hook doesn't appear to be supported by article. Cannot find mention of Cruz in edit history.
• Interesting: - Is there more context that can be given that signals why this is interesting, beyond coincidence? It looks like there might be at this article, but it's paywalled.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Updated - see ALT1 and ALT2 below. Great work getting this article to GA status! It looks like this hook isn't in the article - please take a look at WP:DYKHOOK. Even if it were, I'm not sure it's the most interesting hook there could be for this article unless there's missing detail from the source. Please take a look and see if this one can be improved, or if there's another you'd suggest. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Deamer it’s my first time nominating for DYK so I’m still getting used to what that entails regarding style and interest. If you would be done to suggest something? I think since elections are coming up maybe something related to that and the Trump a tax story? Lisha2037— Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

How about something on the fact they she received the first batch of tax return documents anonymously in her mailbox? The NPR source has some additional colour on this.

The early career section could be expanded with some of the details on her time at the Guantlet from this piece. Pullitzer prize winner only started journalism to get free dinner theatre tickets could be a fun hook if you can find the right wording :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan Deamer I think the tax idea is better for the current events. Did you know the journalist who won the Pulitzer for breaking the story on Trump’s taxes received them anonymously in her mailbox? Lisha2037— Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lisha2037 Thanks! I've taken the liberty of building on this with a couple of alternatives:

• ALT1: ... that Susanne Craig won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on Donald Trump's taxes after receiving his tax records anonymously in her mailbox? NBC, 2016: ""I opened it up and there was three pages of Donald Trump's tax returns there and I just went 'No way!'" she said in an interview with NBC News on Monday. Craig said she was instantly intrigued but skeptical about the authenticity of the documents she’d received anonymously." Pulitzer.org: "The 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting [...] David Barstow, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner of The New York Times. For an exhaustive 18-month investigation of President Donald Trump’s finances that debunked his claims of self-made wealth and revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges."
• ALT2 (in case direct mentions of politicians is not desirable in DYK for the next few weeks): ... that Pulitzer Prize winner Susanne Craig advises her fellow reporters to check their snail mail? New York Times: "The whole experience has left me eager to share a bit of advice with my fellow reporters: Check your mailboxes. Especially nowadays, when people are worried that anything sent by email will leave forensic fingerprints, “snail mail” is a great way to communicate with us anonymously." Pulitzer.org: "The 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting [...] David Barstow, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner of The New York Times. For an exhaustive 18-month investigation of President Donald Trump’s finances that debunked his claims of self-made wealth and revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges."

I think either ALT1 or ALT2 is good to go, but to avoid approving "my own" hook, and given this is potentially a contentious subject right now, could another reviewer please take a look just at these two hooks? Thanks in advance! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan Deamer / I like the first hook better. Let me know what I need to do next! :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisha2037 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lisha2037 No further action needed from you! When another editor checks these hooks we're good to go. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lisha2037 and Jonathan Deamer: ALT1 is more interesting than ALT2, though could do with being truncated at 'taxes' per WP:DYKTRIM. Article says Craig won the prize, the article says she shared it with two others. Did they each get one?--Launchballer 18:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer The Pulitzer Prize is given digitally to all of them with all of them receiving the prize and the $15,000 award. :::::@Lisha2037:

Fine by me. For your information, pings don't work unless you sign, and you sign with ~~~~. The cited source is down and I'd prefer to see a secondary source anyway; when you've done that, I will approve this.--Launchballer 11:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer- did you mean a source citing the monetary award given? It’s here Lisha2037 (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)@lisha2037

No, what I meant is that the source currently being used to cite the hook - currently ref #25 - is broken. It is not displaying what it is supposed to display. I suggest swapping it out with a secondary source such as Vogue.--Launchballer 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer- the source works just fine for me. It’s straight from the website of the Pulitzer Prizes. Lisha2037 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)@lisha2037

Launchballer, when I click on the link for ref #25 in the article, it takes me to the Pulitzer Prizes source; that page shows the three winners including Craig and the $15,000 prize amount. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't when I checked before, but it is now. Let's roll.--Launchballer 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

References