Talk:May 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 14:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 21:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Something that immediately sticks out is the fact that this is all based on routine coverage and news reports from the moment this news story started up until it ended. From what I can see, there are no sources cited from after 17 May. This means I see no evidence that this has the enduring historical significance required to meet notability criteria for events. I also see that the nominator submitted the nomination on 16 May, when this was all still ongoing; I don't think I've ever seen a news item nominated for GA so quickly. For me, this would not be enough to meet GA criteria 2; worse, I think this article might warrant deletion if no enduring notability can be established. The nominator is advised to find secondary sources from the time after this event ended, ideally scholarly sources if those yet exist.
• Spot checks were trivial because much of the information was verified by the title of the cited news source, other parts were often verified by a simple ctrl-f search. It's pointless listing every one I did.

Planning

• "announced that Trump" This is the first time Trump is mentioned in the body, so he should be introduced and his full name should be used.
• Friedman 2025 is routine coverage of something that, at the time of publishing, had not happened yet. Is there a source to cite that covers this in retrospect?
• "though Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East envoy, met with Edan Alexander," When did they meet? Was it on 12 May? Why is this detail mentioned if it's not part of Trump's visit?
• Wang & Viser 2025a is a live feed... Are there really no better sources than a live feed? No published articles?
• "Trump later denied that Israel was deliberately excluded from the visit." Did he offer an explanation?
• Ravid 2025 is a breaking news story. Is there nothing retrospective?
• Grynbaum 2025 is another live feed, good grief. How many of these are there?
• "Newswires were excluded from traveling on Air Force One;" Is it common for newswires to travel on the presidential plane?

Negotiations

• Ravid & Basu 2025 is a source speculating about an event that had not happened yet at time of publication.
• "The administration intended to sign agreements on minerals and semiconductors" They intended to? Did it not happen?
• Dwoskin 2025 is another source talking about something that had not happened yet at time of publication.
• Fassihi 2025a is more routine coverage of something outrageous Trump said.
• "though plans to rename the gulf were later abandoned over Iranian opposition" Then why are we mentioning it? Why is it relevant?

Saudi Arabia ( May 13–14)

• What's with the space after the opening bracket?
• Why is the full title of the BBC article included in the shortened footnote?
• "Trump temporarily stopped at RAF Mildenhall" Why does it matter where his plane refuelled? Why is this relevant?
• "where he repeated his calls" Repeated? When did he previously say this?
• Broadwater 2025a is another live feed.
• Nereim 2025a is from the same live feed as Broadwater.
• "US$600 billion to US$1 trillion" Why are we clarifying that it is US dollars? What other country mentioned in the article uses a dollar currency?
• "Trump and Mohammed signed a "strategic economic partnership"" This sentence is absurdly long and the citation placement makes it even more confusing to read. Either break the sentence up or use different punctuation to better clarify the sentence structure.
• Broadwater 2025b is another live feed.
• "The visit elevated Mohammed's standing within the Saudi government" How did it elevate his standing within the Saudi government? Wasn't he already the de facto ruler of the country?
• Naar 2025a is another live feed.
• "In contrast to the 2017 Riyadh summit, Mohammed greeted Trump at King Khalid International Airport, rather than Salman" Why isn't this mentioned chronologically, when he arrived? Why is it mentioned after they'd already signed a deal?
• Nereim 2025b is another live feed.
• "During the forum, Nvidia and AMD announced" Does this have anything to do with Trump? Is it mentioned just because it "coincided" with the visit? Was Trump involved in the deal?
• "Elon Musk, an advisor to Trump" He was actually the Senior Advisor to the President of the United States, but this implies he was just another advisor.
• Nereim 2025c is another live feed.
• George 2025a is another live feed.
• "American firms" Which American firms?
• "Trump attended a state dinner in Diriyah after speaking at the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum" Why does this matter? I imagine Trump has dinner every night.
• "the first time that the leaders had met since" This then goes on to mention two completely different leaders. I understand you meant the last time the presidents of Syria and the US meant, but it's not immediately clear.
• George 2025b is another live feed.
• "and urged him to join the Abraham Accords" This after mentioning Clinton and Hafez makes it confusing.
• Cheeseman 2025 is another live feed.
• How did al-Sharaa respond to being asked to join the accords? That seems like it would be an important detail to mention, considering his country was invaded by the Israeli Defence Forces.
• "Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took part in the meeting" How were they involved?
• "Trump attended a Gulf Cooperation Council summit" What happened at the summit?
• Nereim 2025d is another live feed.
• Nereim 2025e is another lived feed.
• "In his opening remarks, Mohammed advocated for a conclusion to the Gaza war" How did the other parties involved respond? What happened at the rest of the summit?

Qatar ( May 14–15)

• Another random space after an open bracket. Did you not see these?
• Naar 2025c is another live feed.
• "Hours later, Qatar Airways signed an agreement" How were Trump and Thani involved? The "hours later" thing initially makes this read as coincidental, but it's obviously not.
• Broadwater 2025c is another live feed.
• Wang & Viser 2025b is another live feed.
• "Trump later attended a state dinner at Lusail Palace" Riveting stuff here. I can't believe Trump had dinner again.
• Svitek 2025 is another live feed.
• Tucker 2025b is another live feed.
• Broadwater 2025d is another live feed.
• "he participated in a business roundtable" What happened there?
• "and visited Al Udeid Air Base." No need to link this air base again not two sentences after it was previously linked.

United Arab Emirates ( May 15–16)

• Three. Three random spaces after an open bracket. Ah ah ah.
• Naar 2025d is another live feed.
• "the second serving U.S. president to visit the country" Who was the first?
• "He toured the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque" Wow, I'm so glad to be reading about this man's sight-seeing trip.
• Naar 2025e is another live feed.
• Broadwater 2025e is another live feed.
• "The United Arab Emirates awarded Trump" What for?
• "During the visit, [...]" The wording here again implies that this was a coincidence.
• Swanson 2025b is another live feed.
• "Trump attended a business event and visited the Abrahamic Family House the following day before returning to the United States" So exciting, wow. Why does this matter?

Impact

• The title of this section implies enduring coverage of how this affected things later on, but it only includes analysis during the trip itself. This could be merged into the following section on "Responses".
• ""significant shift in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East"" Why was it a significant shift? What happened? What did it change?
• "in which the U.S. has no enemies" What? WHAT!?! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IN WIKIVOICE YOU'RE SAYING THIS?
• "denounced decades of U.S. foreign policy in the region" How? What "lectures" was the US giving to the middle east? What are you euphemistically gesturing at specifically?
• "amid changes to the country's global reputation" What changes?
• "including hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup" That's not a change to global reputation, it's a sporting event.
• "Trump's decision to lift sanctions from Syria was seen as critical to rebuilding the country." By whom? Who saw it this way? How will it help rebuild Syria?

Ethics concerns

• "The visit came amid business deals with the Trump family" The passive voice used here is astonishing. What an incredible coincidence!
• "posed ethical issues" Very vague. What ethical issues did it pose?
• "Republicans expressed national security concerns over the plane" Which Republicans? What national security concerns? Where did any of this go?

Geopolitical response

• "following an attack on Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran in 2016, Bahrain severed diplomatic relations with Iran, though it has attempted to restore them" What's up with this non-sequiter?
• Naar 2025b is... wait for it... ANOTHER LIVE FEED
• "Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei condemned Trump's critical remarks about Iran during the visit, referring to him as a liar" What critical remarks? Up until this point, it seemed like he only wanted negotiations with Iran! You just said he had taken a lighter tone! What lies?
• "Celebrations in Syria were held" Anything else? Is that it?
• Loveluck & Zakaria 2025 is yet another live feed.

Business deals

• Swanson 2025a is one finally live feed to seal the deal.
• Is this seriously the only response to the business deals? Some USian committee used it to whine about China again? That's it?

Lead and infobox

• This infobox offers so little information it might as well not exist.
• "his first major international trip" Major how?
• "The four-day tour primarily focused on securing business deals and investments in the United States, which Trump claimed could reach as high as $4 trillion, as well as lifting sanctions on the transitional government of Syria. " This is all you can write about the results of this trip? Nothing about the deals made for his own family? Nothing about the impact this had?

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Well, I just wasted an hour of my time going through this article. I will never get that back. I feel personally offended that anyone considered this article remotely ready for GA, least of all immediately after the event had finished.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is neither clear nor concise. Punctuation is bad too.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead is too short.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are largely well-presented.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   These sources cannot be considered reliable by our standards. They're not just news sources, they're live reactions, which means the entire article has the tone of exhausting, breathless coverage of everything Trump does, no matter how minor. There is barely anything in here to meet GA criteria for reliability, let alone notability standards for an article.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Everything is in the sources, without original interpretation.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   It's hard to plagiarise headlines and live feeds, I'll give you that. (Earwig gives a false positive for a website that appears to have scraped this article)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Does it? I have no idea, because the article has the depth of a paddling pool.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   A couple cases of weird trivial details.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Usage of the passive voice and selective omissions make me doubt this is neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since nomination. Only reversions were of IP editors during the news story.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are all from the White House flickr.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are all from the event that took place.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well this was an easy quick-fail. Not only does the article fail to meet GA criteria in several different ways, it might not even be a notable subject, as it fails to establish that this event has enduring notability. I'd encourage the nominator to take things a bit slower next time before nominating such routine, boring news coverage for GAN. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2025 (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.