Talk:US President Trump orders government recognize male, female as only sexes
Review of revision 4835952 [Not ready]
 |
Revision 4835952 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Style The lede should answer the WN:5Ws. Why Trump removed the X option on American passports should be provided in the lede. This is answered in the second paragraph and I think it should be moved up, even to replace or move down the last sentence of the lede; "It had already been speculated by news sources that changes would come to passports since the declaration." Speculation must be attributed, therefore this sentence should be removed if attribution can't be found. Also remember we don't use speculation of other news agencies. I believe Trump's inauguration ceremonies only lasted the one day[1]. The first sentence could be clarified to state that it was his first day in office, or the first official day of his presidency, or simply on the day of his inauguration. Consider finding a free use image (or more) to add to the article as well as an infobox. These elements are not required, but can make an article more compelling to read and the infobox will provide links to related content that readers can follow to read more of our content. Be consistent in formatting the option "X." In one part of the article it is italicized, in another it is in quotation marks. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends[2] using double quotes. Acronyms such as LGBT should be defined (fully spelled out) on their first use. NPOV For neutrality, we should not use sex and gender interchangeably. All instances of "sex/gender" should be removed and clarified to either mention sex or gender as appropriate. Statements such as "long lasting" and "putting the US at odds with fellow Anglophone-majority countries" should either be attributed (to a person, not a news agency) or removed as they are biased. In the last paragraph, the word "numerous" can introduce subtle bias by implying a significant number without providing specific quantification. A more neutral phrasing would specify the number or use a term like "some" or "several," depending on verifiable data. For example, only three countries were listed but there are 46 countries that have English as an official language and 54 have English as their de facto, primary language[3]. In that context, only three is not numerous. Also in the last paragraph, the phrase "at odds with" implies conflict or discord, which suggests an evaluative stance rather than a neutral presentation of facts. It also subtly implies that the US should conform to the policies of other Anglophone-majority countries, which is an editorializing implication. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 4835952 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Style The lede should answer the WN:5Ws. Why Trump removed the X option on American passports should be provided in the lede. This is answered in the second paragraph and I think it should be moved up, even to replace or move down the last sentence of the lede; "It had already been speculated by news sources that changes would come to passports since the declaration." Speculation must be attributed, therefore this sentence should be removed if attribution can't be found. Also remember we don't use speculation of other news agencies. I believe Trump's inauguration ceremonies only lasted the one day[4]. The first sentence could be clarified to state that it was his first day in office, or the first official day of his presidency, or simply on the day of his inauguration. Consider finding a free use image (or more) to add to the article as well as an infobox. These elements are not required, but can make an article more compelling to read and the infobox will provide links to related content that readers can follow to read more of our content. Be consistent in formatting the option "X." In one part of the article it is italicized, in another it is in quotation marks. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends[5] using double quotes. Acronyms such as LGBT should be defined (fully spelled out) on their first use. NPOV For neutrality, we should not use sex and gender interchangeably. All instances of "sex/gender" should be removed and clarified to either mention sex or gender as appropriate. Statements such as "long lasting" and "putting the US at odds with fellow Anglophone-majority countries" should either be attributed (to a person, not a news agency) or removed as they are biased. In the last paragraph, the word "numerous" can introduce subtle bias by implying a significant number without providing specific quantification. A more neutral phrasing would specify the number or use a term like "some" or "several," depending on verifiable data. For example, only three countries were listed but there are 46 countries that have English as an official language and 54 have English as their de facto, primary language[6]. In that context, only three is not numerous. Also in the last paragraph, the phrase "at odds with" implies conflict or discord, which suggests an evaluative stance rather than a neutral presentation of facts. It also subtly implies that the US should conform to the policies of other Anglophone-majority countries, which is an editorializing implication. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Last minute commitment
@Bddpaux, Gryllida, RockerballAustralia, Heavy Water: I had hoped to get back to this article for a re-review, but I now have a last minute commitment and will not likely have time this weekend to review long articles like this. Can someone else? Thanks, Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I took some time to edit the article and noticed it still uses sex and gender interchangeably. Since the executive order explicitly distinguishes between the two, our article should carefully reflect this distinction. I’ve made some adjustments in the lede—see this diff as an example. I didn't edit beyond the lede, so if you have time, CheatCodes4ever, it would help speed up the review process if you could go through the rest of the article and correct any remaining instances where sex and gender are conflated. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, the EO[7] says the following:
[E]very agency and all Federal employees acting in an official capacity on behalf of their agency shall use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all applicable Federal policies and documents.
- Trump seemed to conflate gender for sex, based on the definition of the two laid out in the EO, in the first quote our article uses. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Michael.C.Wright: I think the problem has been fixed now. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Correction
It appears original author has taken steps to corrected noted concerns. I am starting review.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Review of revision 4836636 [Passed]
 |
Revision 4836636 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Excellent work! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4836636 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Excellent work! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
- This was published a day without the freshness window (occurred on January 20, was published on January 28).
- I've made major copyedits to the article and its headline for redundancy, compliance with the inverted pyramid style, etc. I'd greatly appreciate if Gryllida, Bddpaux, or Michael.C.Wright have the opportunity to sight these edits. Heavy Water (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. I have also made a few changes which now need to be sighted. Thanks! —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Top article of January, 2025
This article received the highest number of page-views (1,558 as of this posting[8]) of all articles published in January of 2025! This article also had a higher-than-average number of collaborators. Congratulations to all of the authors who contributed:
- CheatCodes4ever (original author)
- Heavy Water
- Bddpaux
- Darkfrog24
- BigKrow
Thank you all! —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 18:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- We all did a great job! Thank you all! BigKrow (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)