Talk:Jonathan Swan/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

Passed. MCE89 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: DannyRogers800 (talk · contribs) 20:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 23:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hello, I'll take this review. I'll add my initial comments within the next day or so. MCE89 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! In the meantime, I'll review Chinese Australian Herald. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
That's very kind, thank you! Initial comments added below. The only thing remaining is my source spot checks, so just ping me when you're done with these comments and I'll do those. MCE89 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
@MCE89 Should be done. I'll start the review either tomorrow or the day after. DannyRogers800 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Looks good, just one suggestion inline below. Will try to do the spot checks later today. MCE89 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Spot checks all look good. My one remaining concern is whether the section on the criticism of his reporting may be slightly harsher on him that is really warranted by the sources. For instance, the Washington Post article that is cited heavily here concludes: Even accounting for competitive jealousies among reporters, the take on Swan among his peers is generally positive... Notwithstanding the birthright citizenship episode, they describe Swan as a rigorous and independent reporter. At the moment I think the takeaway I get from reading the article is a bit more negative than what I got from the sources for this section. I think replacing some of the passive language (e.g. "Some commentators", "attracted criticism", "been questioned") and attributing statements/criticisms more directly throughout this section might help with this, but let me know what you think. MCE89 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Good point, but the sources detailing this criticism do not attribute themselves. So I don't think much can be done. I don't know how the section can be made to read less negatively. DannyRogers800 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
That's fair. To give a couple of specific places where I think you could consider making changes:
  • Journalists initially called out some of his reports, such as his 2018 interview with Trump, for lacking insight and critique — I think the fact that this is all that is really said about his pre-2020 reporting in the lead gives the impression that he was generally regarded negatively by other journalists early on, whereas the sources suggest that he attracted some criticism but had a relatively positive reputation (which I think the body of the article does do a better job of conveying). You could consider adding a sentence before this one in the lead saying something like Swan broke several major stories and became a rising figure in political journalism, contributing to Axios's rise to prominence. However, some of his reports, such as his 2018 interview with Trump, were called out for lacking insight and critique.
  • ...and the lack of depth in his articles, with the one detailing the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital being just 55 words long. — Could this potentially be attributed directly to Farhi? I'd probably summarise this as something more like: In an article for the Washington Post, Paul Farhi described Swan as being not the "deepest reporter or finest writer", pointing out that his story detailing the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital was just 55 words long. You could also consider mentioning Farhi's conclusion that other journalists thought of him positively, by adding something like: However, Farhi described Swan's reputation among his fellow journalists as generally positive despite the criticism he had attracted, saying that they described him as a "rigorous and independent reporter".
Those are just rough illustrative wordings, so not suggesting that you adopt any of that verbatim. If you're happy with the article as it stands then I'm not too concerned about this, so happy to leave it if you're not keen on changes here. MCE89 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Good suggestions. About this time tomorrow they should be ready. DannyRogers800 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I've followed your suggestions but generally used a different phrasing. See what you think. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Looks good! Passing this now. MCE89 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Initial checks

  • Images: Infobox image is CC-BY-3.0. The image from the 2020 interview is fair use and the NFUR seems appropriate to me. I'm a little more on the fence about the image from the 2018 interview though — could you add a bit more to the NFUR on how this satisfies WP:NFCC#8 (specifically how it significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding)?
Changed slightly. See what you think.
Yep, that works.
  • Copyright: No issues apparent on Earwig. Will do further checks for close paraphrasing as part of my spot checks
  • Stability: I can see that there have been NPOV concerns in the past, but these appear to have been resolved. I don't see anything to suggest that this fails the stability criteria at this stage
Splendid.

Prose and general comments

  • He is best known for his 2020 interview... — I think the claim that he is specifically "best known" for this interview would need a source, and I can't currently see this specific claim in the body. You could alternatively change this to "His 2020 interview...attracted attention" or similar if there isn't a source explicitly saying that it's what he is best known for
I've rewritten the first lead sentence.
  • with then-US president Donald Trump — Not strictly incorrect, but reads a bit oddly given that Trump is now president again. Perhaps consider taking out the "then"?
Agreed... removed.
  • Swan started out in journalism with local papers — Again not strictly incorrect and I know what you mean by this, but given that the Sydney Morning Herald is one of Australia's newspapers of record and serves a city of 5 million+, referring to it as a "local paper" does sound a bit odd. You could consider changing this to something like "started out in the Australian media".
Changed to "with Australian papers".
  • His peers initially denounced — "His peers" is a bit ambiguous, I'd suggest clarifying that you are referring to other journalists in general rather than his coworkers at Axios specifically. "Denounced" also feels like extremely strong language here, I think "critiqued" or "criticised" might somewhat better reflect the sources
Changed to "called out" because the root of criticize is already mentioned in the sentence (critique).
  • You could briefly mention the first Trump interview in the lead
Done.
  • A year later, Axios won an Emmy Award for Best Edited Interview. — You could specify that they won the award for Swan's interview
Done.
  • Around this time, he also worked for The Age — The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are sister papers published by Fairfax Media that pool together a lot of their stories and journalists, so I wouldn't exactly say that he "also" worked for The Age. The source says that he was the Fairfax national political reporter, which means that he would have just produced stories that were published simultaneously by both of the Fairfax papers, not that he exactly had separate jobs at both papers
I've rewritten the second sentence to "Around this time, he was a national political reporter for Fairfax Media."
  • to work as a congressional aide at Washington, D.C. — Should be in Washington, D.C.?
Yes, fixed.
  • and the lack of depth in his articles — This clause seems to be missing a verb, suggest changing this to something like and criticised some of his articles for lacking depth
I don't think it's a clause of its own; it's a noun phrase. Consider the sentence thus: Some commentators accused him of favoring "access over accountability" in light of 1) his refusal to strongly challenge the White House's actions and 2) the lack of depth in his articles, with the one detailing the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital being just 55 words long.
Ah got it, I'd parsed it incorrectly. That's fine.
  • I'd suggest integrating the blockquote at the beginning of the "Second Trump interview" section into the prose, as at the moment it comes a bit out of nowhere before we've gotten the context
Done.
  • It lasted 38 minutes — Suggest changing to The interview lasted 38 minutes
Done.
  • ...where he focuses on congressional Republicans. — This probably can't be stated in present tense, as it seems like he's shifted to covering the White House since then:
Agreed. I also added another sentence indicating what Swan does now.
  • I'm not entirely convinced that the section on Swan's Wikipedia page is really WP:DUE for a biography of him, especially for the "Personal life" section. The story seems to be much more about Axios paying for Wikipedia edits than having all that much to do with Swan himself, so I'm not quite sure it merits inclusion in an article summarises his life/career. Open to being convinced otherwise though.
I'm not convinced either. But it's an interesting bit of info, possibly the only interesting part of the article. I'll remove it if you wish.
That's fair — how would you feel about shortening it slightly and moving it up to the "First Trump interview (2018)" section when you describe the backlash to the interview? That feels like a slightly more natural place for it at least — I'm not sure it really belongs in "Personal life".

Sources

  • Source reliability all looks fine to me.
  • Reference formatting and layout meets all GA criteria.

Spot checks

This table checks 15 passages from throughout the article (20.3% of 74 total passages). These passages contain 21 inline citations (20.2% of 104 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. MCE89 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

More information Reference #, Letter ...
Reference #LetterSourceArchiveStatusNotes
Jonathan Swan was born on August 7, 1985,
2politico.comweb.archive.org Good
he grew up in a "very liberal" Reform Jewish household enrolled in the Emanuel Synagogue.
5jewishinsider.comweb.archive.org Good
Swan began reporting on politics at The Hill in 2015.
9cadweek.comarchive.today Good
the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the firing of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
6ewashingtonpost.comarchive.today Good
and the lack of depth in his articles, with the one detailing the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital being just 55 words long.
6hwashingtonpost.comarchive.today Good
His paid speaking engagements, earning him as much as $25,000 per speech,
6iwashingtonpost.comarchive.today Good
a constitutionally protected right.
6kwashingtonpost.comarchive.today Good
and "less a news story than … a press release".
6owashingtonpost.comarchive.today Good
The US was then engulfed in a pandemic that had killed upward of 100,000 Americans
14nytimes.comweb.archive.org Good
He pointedly challenged and spotlit the president's false and misleading statements throughout.
11djewishinsider.comweb.archive.org Good
12dwashingtonpost.comarchive.today Good
16atheguardian.comweb.archive.org Good
Journalist David Brody asserted that while Trump often dominated interviews by "commandeering" them, Swan humbled him.
12ewashingtonpost.comarchive.today Good
The interview was widely praised,
3etheguardian.comweb.archive.org Good
12fwashingtonpost.comarchive.today Good
16btheguardian.comweb.archive.org Good
The interview proved a media and internet sensation,
16etheguardian.comweb.archive.org Good
20fjpost.comweb.archive.org Good
A tenth bonus article (or episode) is also included in the series.
25aaxios.comweb.archive.org Good
Close
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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI