Talk:Steven Cheung/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) 00:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: GRuban (talk · contribs) 16:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Not done with the first pass of the review until the Doing... template, below, has been struck.

The six good article criteria

WP:GACR6 A good article is:

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
      • " parents who immigrated to the United States in the 1960s from Hong Kong and Japan.[4] His mother was raised in Japan." - Redundant (or at least repetitive). Can you find a source for father from HK? That would be an obvious way to remove the red/rep.

        Removed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

        Sigh, I can't find a source for father from HK either. Now I regret asking for cleanup, because we are deleting info for the sake of removing repetition. I won't object if "mother from Japan" is restored, or not. Either way,  Done. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • "Early career (2003–2016) While attending California State University, Cheung worked as a communications and speechwriting intern for California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.[1] He worked for Arizona senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign.[8] Cheung later worked for Steve Poizner's campaign in the 2010 California gubernatorial election and Sharron Angle's campaign in the 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada.[9]" - this isn't as clear as it could be in specifying when his CSU term ended. The source [1, Atlantic] is quite clear that McCain was after he dropped out. We could also stand to mention that the reason the header says 2003- is because Schwarzenegger became governor in 2003. And why "later" for Poizner but not for McCain?

        Done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • "In 2013,[5] Cheung was named as the director of communications and public affairs for Ultimate Fighting Championship." - let's rephrase. "was named as" is often used in political positions because they are often made by announcement, the campaign or politician makes an explicit statement to the press "we are hiring X; X is joining our team; please welcome X...". Did that happen here? If not, let's just say "was hired" or "became" or "began work" or something. It's a fine point, but we have "was named as" twice in the next paragraph where I can more likely imagine the announcement.

        Done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • "the director of rapid response" - not a common title, let's either link it or explain what it means in a couple of words (maybe communications?). Also the cited source says "rapid response director"; a minor difference, but a difference.

        The source doesn't say what "rapid response" means. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

        https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-trump-campaign-announces-expansion-communications-team "Trump Campaign Announces Expansion of Communications Team .... Steven Cheung, who will serve as the campaign's Director of Rapid Response. Mr. Cheung's focus will be on keeping the campaign up to date on breaking news and pushing back on false or unbalanced reporting." That explains what rapid response means. Use it or a better source to add a few of these words like "communications team", "up to date", "breaking news", and "pushing back". --GRuban (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

        Fine, done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • "Cheung was among those fired by White House chief of staff John F. Kelly in June 2018. According to Cliff Sims, Cheung—an obscure aide—was instrumental in ensuring Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination and the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act." - probably reorder these two sentences, surely he was instrumental before he was fired, not after?

        Agreed, removed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

        Reordered, not removed, thank goodness.  Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • "Cheung had begun consulting Trump's 2020 presidential campaign" - consulting for?

        Changed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

        "consulting communications" still needs an intermediate word. I'll just do it. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • " In January 2022, Politico reported that Cheung was considering a campaign " - since all the previous, very recent, mentions of "campaign", meant someone else's campaign he worked for, let's rephrase this to specify that this time we mean a campaign he headed, maybe "considering running"? "standing for office"?

        Fine, done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • "By March 2023, Cheung had been leading communications " - a fine point, but "had been" implies he then stopped; if that's not the implication, let's just make it "was", shorter.

        I'm not getting that same assumption. The implication is that by March 2023, Cheung was already leading communications. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

        Accepted.--GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • " several members of Trump campaign's staff" - the Trump campaign staff? the Trump campaign's staff? Trump's campaign staff?

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • "had engaged in a physical altercation with an official at Arlington National Cemetery. Cheung told NPR that the cemetery worker was "suffering from a mental health episode" and asserted that the campaign had permission to film at the cemetery." - let's explain in the first sentence that the official was trying to stop them from filming. Or, honestly, we could just leave this whole episode out, it's not clear that this episode made a big impact on Cheung's career.

        Agreed, removed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • "White House Communications Director (2025–present)" is confusing since its only sentence refers to 2024. Specify that despite being named in 2024, he actually only formally started in 2025. But, as mentioned elsewhere, this whole section needs expansion.

        Standard practice is to include the year even if the section mentions events before that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

        No, it's only standard practice for you. Here are the first five articles in Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Politics_and_government_biographies: John Adair – John Adams – Samuel Adams – Spiro Agnew – Nadezhda Alliluyeva. Out of those five, exactly one, Agnew, puts any years in the section headings, and even it doesn't go to the extent you do of putting them in the majority. I'm not insisting you use the style of those articles, but I do insist on "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience", and putting 2025 in the section heading and having the only sentence in the content be about 2024 is not. It is certainly allowed to mention other years, but not to focus only on them. If you duly expand the section to actually be about 2025-present, and clarify that even though he was appointed in 2024, he actually started in 2025, I'll accept that mention of 2024, but right now it isn't. --GRuban (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

         Not done Still need to clarify that even though he was appointed in 2024, he actually started in 2025, otherwise the implication from this section is that he started soon after being appointed in November. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

        I was not able to find a source that directly says he began serving in 2025, but I was able to combine two sources to make that claim. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
      • "Cheung attended California State University, Sacramento, but did not earn a degree." - I think this isn't important enough to be copied to the lead; it isn't expanded on in the body, and I don't see anywhere where which school he went to or that he didn't degree has had an influence on the rest of his life.

        Agreed, done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

      • What you probably want to put in the lead instead, since we do want to summarize the Early life and education section, is that he grew up in California, since that seems to have had a noticeable impact: he has worked for multiple California campaigns, Schwarzenegger, Poizner, Jenner, and considered running for CA office.
      • You may consider putting in the lead that he's a child of Asian immigrants; that is usually mentioned in the sources, and did make a difference in his life, as in the New Yorker article: "He has also stepped in to refute accusations that the Trump movement is racist. ... Cheung replied, “As an Asian American ...”" which we don't say, but could. Not required, but do put some sentence in the lead to represent the Early life and education section.

         Not done Put some sentence in the lead to summarize or at least represent the Early life and education section.--GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

        Done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

        You mean restoring the "did not graduate" sentence? I am against that one, as discussed just above. Basically, we shouldn't be unnecessarily mean to him. I'm going to guess that out of "born/grew up in CA", "of Chinese parents" and "did not graduate college", this is not only the part that had the least influence on his life, but is also the one he is least proud of, so shouldn't be the one we choose to emphasize. I explain why one or both of the other two is/are more important also above. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

        Plenty of people do not graduate college for valid reasons. There's no clear link between him being born in California or being born to Chinese parents and his career. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

        Eh. So I agree it doesn't jump out at you, but it is better than the alternative. MOS:LEAD is a GA criterion, and it says "summarize the most important points". Sections are usually considered important points, so I think we should have either a summary sentence or at least a representative sentence for the "Early life and education (1982–2004)" section; I think we are agreed here? So we need something. In choosing that something let's see how often each of our candidates are likely relevant to the rest of the article

        1. "attended California State University, Sacramento, but did not graduate" -
           1. at the end of the "Elae" section
           2. "While attending California State University, Cheung worked as a communications and speechwriting intern for California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger."
        2. "born in Sacramento, California"
           1. at the beginning of the "Elae" section
           2. "attended California State University, Sacramento" (63% of CSU Sacramento students are from Greater Sacramento)
           3. "worked as a communications and speechwriting intern for California governor..."
           4. "worked for Steve Poizner's campaign in the 2010 California gubernatorial election"
           5. "joined Caitlyn Jenner's campaign in the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election" (that's three campaigns in California as opposed to one each in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and Vermont)
           6. "considering running in the ... California's ninth congressional district" (which one of my articles proves he actually could do without being from there!, but would have difficulty)
        3. "to Chinese immigrant parents"
           1. only mentioned once, in Elae
           2. but could be; in reading the sources (I have no knowledge of the subject except from working on this GA review!) I see numerous sources talking about him being Asian, calling him Oddjob (both his friends and his enemies!), the Trump administration is regularly accused of being both racist and anti-immigrant, which at least once, as mentioned above, he specifically cites his ethnicity to refute, etc. That's not written in the article elsewhere, though, so if you don't want to say it, I won't insist on it.

        That's two to six to one. And the "didn't graduate" part isn't emphasized anywhere in the sources I read, even the ones that clearly don't like him; so I think we shouldn't emphasize it in the second sentence of our article either. If you really want to mention that he went to CSUS in the lead, you can do that as well, (something like "born, grew up and attended college in Sacramento, California") but I think that between them, that he was born and grew up in CA is more impactful. --GRuban (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

        Fine, done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

      • I think we also want to mention his work for the UFC in the lead, since it was three years, and otherwise we're implying that he had a straight political career, and it does look like his work for wrestlers had an impact. I clicked into the first several sources in the article, and they mention this; the first one is an interview and he calls out his UFC work in his career, the Atlantic article says it's part of his "legend".

        Agreed, done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

        Maybe from 2013-2016 he worked for ...? But I'll take it either way.  Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • The last sentence of the lead is a one-sentence paragraph, we can't have that, that's part of MOS:LAYOUT. We probably need to expand that with how the section on that is expanded, see below under "main aspects".

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • The "communication style" section is large enough to need mention in the lead, also see below about that.

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
      • Please archive source URLs. I did four, but the others would be nice as well. Wikipedia:Archiving a source gives instructions

        Done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

      • [9], " Kanski 2016" is left over from the sfn citing style, please fix.

        Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • Joseph, Cameron (January 11, 2024). "The Hardest Worker In All Of Trumpland". NOTUS - appears in two places in the references list, merge. While you're at it, link the site title to NOTUS (website) or The Washington Sun (website).

        Someone else seems to have written that. Done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • My compliments on linking many of the article authors, nice.
   2. 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);
      • Yes.
   3. it contains no original research;
      • See spotcheck in Veracity table below.

         Not done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

        I already changed the way that I was using The New Yorker source. I could not find another source on his majors, but The Atlantic also reported that he did not graduate. If the Office of the Registrar told a news source that he did not graduate, that seems to be enough for me. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

        Good enough.  Done. --GRuban (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
      • Earwig is mostly good, but let's rephrase "Stephanie Grisham, who worked with Cheung in the White House, told NOTUS that he excelled at "pithy statements that can offend people quickly, which is exactly what Trumpworld likes." which is just too close to "Stephanie Grisham, who worked with Cheung on the 2016 campaign and in the White House (and later broke with Trump over the Jan. 6 insurrection), said that he was “quite smart” and excelled at “pithy statements that can offend people quickly, which is exactly what Trumpworld likes.”" from https://www.notus.org/the-hardest-worker-in-all-of-trumpland

        Changed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
      • This is going to be rough, but the White House Communications Director section is the most important job he's ever held - and we don't say anything about it, just one sentence about his appointment, and it's been almost two years. I know GAs don't need to be comprehensive, but this is definitely one of the "main aspects of the topic", possibly the single most important one, it's right there in the article lead sentence.

        I haven't seen reporting on Cheung's tenure specifically. He has been present in meetings about the Epstein files and the war in Iran, but his involvement has been minimal. Coincidentally, the White House has been barring press outlets from the White House, but it sounds as if his office was blindsided. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

        • I am not insisting you write about Friday's media ban specifically, that can be editorial choice. I am insisting you write about his White House Communications Director job in general. This is clearly one of the main aspects of the topic, and I refuse to believe there is nothing important to say: a web search on "Steven Cheung" since 2025 has many, many news articles about him specifically. Choosing which are the most important is your job as the article nominator. Insisting that there be something important written in the article about the most important job he has ever held is mine as the GA reviewer. Without this, you shall not pass! --GRuban (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

        Fine, done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:59, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

        Eh, a bit choppy but better than the previous one sentence section. Says "Leavitt" but doesn't explain who she is or link her; I'll fix it myself. Not clear that any of these events are crucial ... but I asked for expansion and you expanded.  Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      • Is it correct that the whole communications style section is about his White House Communications Director job? If so, combining those would be a reasonable way to meet the above point. No, I see it isn't. In either case, it's a big section and needs summary in the lede, as above.

        I cannot see where this would go in the lede. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

        Again, you get some leeway, but somewhere you want to say that he is known for his profanity laden attacks on Trump's adversaries in public - and possibly more restrained tone in private. The lead needs to summarize the body, and this is a noticeable part of the body. --GRuban (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

        Fine, done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:59, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

         Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
      • Mostly; I mention a couple of places where something might be left out, but they are probably debatable/acceptable if you don't agree.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
   • "Cheung helped orchestrate the 2020 Republican National Convention." - er - what does that mean? I'm reading the source, and it's not clear what they mean, also Cheung is mentioned exactly once among many names. Unless we get clarification what exactly is meant, I don't think we can write this, the 2020 RNC was a big deal, and we don't want to give the impression he did a lot if he was actually pretty minor. Not sure whether this goes to neutral or well-written, but it's one of these.

     The source did say that he helped orchestrate the event, but I added that other officials were involved. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

     If we don't know what "orchestrate" means, neither will our readers, so it's not understandable, criteria 1.1. Also it's a one-sentence mention in the source; unless we know his role was important, it could well be unnecessary detail, criterion 3.1. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

     Fine, done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

      Done --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   • "According to The New Yorker's Clare Malone, Cheung's abrasive tone is not present in his direct and private communications with reporters.[31]" - no, this is also a big part of the Atlantic article by Elaine Godfrey, is mentioned in the Mother Jones article ("He bashes the mainstream press, but then “he’s getting cappuccinos with them in the morning,”"), and possibly others, we shouldn't give the impression this is just one magazine and reporter.

     Changed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

     Eh. I'm just going to add the Atlantic and Mother Jones sources myself, this is a controversial statement by definition, extra sources are needed IMHO. --GRuban (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
   • Bullet successfully dodged!
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   • Yes; beautiful photos. If the 2025- section is expanded as I recommend there might be room for a third.
     • Oh the poor guy. The camera is cruel to him in general; but at least in the previous infobox photo, File:Trump staff before UFC 314 (Steven Cheung).jpg he wasn't visibly frowning. Maybe move this one into the 20205 or compative communication style section? I won't insist on it, and will see if I can find kinder ones. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
      • Yes
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
      • Yes

Veracity table

This table lists 4 random passages from throughout the article (10.0% of 40 total passages). These passages contain 4 inline citations (9.5% of 42 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. GRuban (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Cheung later attended California State University, Sacramento, majoring in computer science and political science,
5	c	motherjones.com			Eh, sort of. The source does say something close to that, but actually what it says is "he graduated from California State University in Sacramento with a double major in political science and computer science", and we say he didn't graduate. So since we disagree with another key part of this same sentence, using the rest as a source is less than ideal. Honestly, if this weren't on a GA candidate I'd probably let it slide, but this is on a GA candidate. Let's find another source we can use to confirm the majors ... and, honestly, let's find a second or third source that says he didn't graduate, because we now have a reasonably good source that says he did, so if we want to say he didn't, in Wikipedia's voice, we want to be clear that it's a clear preponderance of the sources.
In 2013,
5	d	motherjones.com			The actual sentence in the article is "In 2013,[5] Cheung was named as the director of communications and public affairs for Ultimate Fighting Championship", and the 2013 part is in the source. I think we should move the source to the end of the sentence, though, because as the block quoted by the Veracity tool points out, just the "In 2013" part isn't really complete, and the source does have another sentence or two to back more of the sentence.
By March 2023, Cheung had been leading communications for Trump's 2024 presidential campaign.
23		axios.com
According to The New Yorker's Clare Malone, Cheung's abrasive tone is not present in his direct and private communications with reporters.
31		newyorker.com			Eh. The subtitle of the article does say "The former President and his spokesman, Steven Cheung, like to hurl insults at their political rivals, but behind the scenes the campaign has maintained a cozy relationship with much of the mainstream press" - but (1) that's the subtitle, not the article body, and I'm pretty sure there's some guideline that the article title isn't to be given as much weight as the article body, though I can't find it immediately (2) it doesn't say Cheung himself, it says the campaign. But then the article body does say "By some accounts, Steven Cheung... is a pretty nice guy. “He has a nickname, Panda, which comes from his old Twitter handle,” Matthew Boyle, Breitbart’s Washington Bureau Chief, said... “He’s big, fluffy, and lovable.” ... “I like dealing with him,” a reporter who covers the Trump campaign for a mainstream news outlet told me. ... He gets back to you. He gets you statements." That's kind of backing the sentence, but not directly, it doesn't specifically say his abrasive tone isn't present, it says he has a good relationship with mainstream reporters behind the scenes, which is similar but not quite the same. Might call for rephrasing. Don't take it out entirely, though, by any means, this, or some statement much like this, is important. If you do as I strongly recommend above, and add the Atlantic source, or another, to back this sentence (and remove the "According to The New Yorker's Clare Malone" part), together that should suffice.

Doing... --GRuban (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Done with the first pass, will hold for responses. The most important bit, and probably the hardest, will be the expansion of the "White House Communications Director (2025–present)". As mentioned, this is the most important job he's held, right in the article first sentence, the key point of our article, so we absolutely need to write some real content about it, the article is simply not complete without it. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: Most done, thanks, but a few not, so marked above. Almost there. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks Good to me. I might make a few edits of my own, that will not be required for GA status; you can feel free to revert them, in other words. Or I might not. But for now, have a little green plus sign. --GRuban (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2026 (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.