Template:Did you know nominations/Unhinged (book)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Unhinged (book)

 * ... that the Donald Trump presidential campaign claims Omarosa Manigault (pictured) violated a non-disclosure agreement in the publication and promotion of Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House?
 * Reviewed: IOU

Created by Muboshgu (talk) and Volunteer Marek (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 03:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svgQuery: Article is new enough, long enough, neutral and well-cited. The Earwig score is from titles and short quotes.  Hook is just under 200 characters (not counting "(pictured)"), properly formatted, interesting, and cited in the article.  However it is a claim about a living person involving an unresolved legal matter.  I don't find it terribly negative, but I don't think it can go on the main page.  QPQ needed.  The picture displays well and has a share-alike cc license.  However, the picture does not appear in the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this phrasing side-steps the neutrality issue. ALT1: ... that the Trump presidential campaign filed arbitration against the publication of Omarosa Manigault's Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House, citing a non-disclosure agreement? Source: "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. has filed an arbitration against Omarosa Manigault-Newman, with the American Arbitration Association in New York City, for breach of her 2016 confidentiality agreement with the Trump Campaign," a campaign official said. Politico – Reidgreg (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did think someone might have an issue with the "unresolved legal matter" business. I'm open to any hook that isn't a BLP violation. That image was in the article but I see in the history that someone else swapped it out for the current image. I'll undo because this image does better at size. Of course, if the image won't be used anyway because it's a contentious subject, maybe it doesn't matter. QPQ forthcoming. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to request third opinions about the feasibility of the hooks before possibly requesting a new review. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As for the hook itself, ALT1 does seem to be neutrally written (all it does is report facts) and does its best to present a potentially contentious matter in a NPOV-conforming matter. I have no opinion on the article content itself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason the hooks refer to her as "Omarosa Manigualt" when our article is "Omarosa Manigault Newman" and she is also credited on the book with her full name? Seems confusing. Regards SoWhy 10:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They're each very close to the 200-character limit, and would have to remove another word to include her full name. She married Newman about a year and a half ago but is still often referred to as Omarosa Manigault or simply Omarosa. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since she is more often referred to as "Omarosa", wouldn't it be better just to use the momonym instead then? Regards SoWhy 13:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops, caught the gualt-gault typo, thanks! I'd personally rather not reduce it all the way to the mononym, but I'm open to it. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I made the same typo when writing the article a few times. I'm open to whichever way we present her name. I did leave out the "Newman" due to concerns of complications and characters. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that the Trump presidential campaign filed arbitration against the publication of Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House by Omarosa Manigault (pictured), citing a non-disclosure agreement? Source: same as ALT1
 * I struck ALT0 and added ALT2 which allows for the picture. Please swap the picture back into the article for the next reviewer, if you want it. Be sure to list your QPQ when you have it.  All the best. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svgRequest new review – Reidgreg (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ready to review. What do you think to shorten the hook at the end, because I don't think the reason makes it more interesting?
 * ALT3: ... that the Trump presidential campaign filed arbitration against the publication of Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House by Omarosa Manigault Newman (pictured)?
 * No need to move the image which shows well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But image in article and hook have to match. (Didn't you say that was done?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I meant to but forgot. I just did it now. Totally fine with shortening the hook. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! If you prefer the other, change after DYK day - I recently did that for an organ composition, where the better image just didn't show well in small.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT3 preferred. --Gerda Arendt (User talk:Gerda Arendt) 14:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Trump Administration (and The Apprentice) is rather infamous for these non-disclosure agreements, so I thought that gave it a little extra "pop". BTW, did you only approve the alt which you yourself submitted? I'm not sure that Totally fine with shortening = preferred. Just asking, I didn't think I could check the alts I proposed, though I changed a bit more. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear enough. "preferred" means preferred by me (who signed). ALT2, ALT3 and ALT4 are approved by me, you can strike as you like if at least one remains, otherwise we leave it to the prep builder who may need a shorter or longer hook. This one is attractive simply by the long bolded title, so I don't believe it needs extra weight. But what do I know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)