Talk:Amy Gleason

Citation format

The page uses "Sfn" markup to cite its sources.

Since this is not a page that relies on books or monographies, I suggest that we convert it into the usual "cite" format.

Any objection? Selbstporträt (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amy Gleason/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 06:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lajmmoore (talk · contribs) 16:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article reads well and is clear. It follows the MoS, but I think the lead is too long. I don't think the lead needs her early life in this case, and whilst it's technically fine for the lead to be copy-pasted, I think for this article re-writing the lead would improve it.

   Done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

   Apologies for the intrusion, I'm not the GA reviewer here, and I will try not to nitpick further, but I looked, and the first sentence says "... who has served as the acting administrator of the United States DOGE Service since 2025." and that's her main reason for notability, which is a fine thing to put in the first sentence. But ... the article seems like that's not really correct, she's not doing that any more. The infobox says "Succeeded by: Position abolished" which is pretty clear that she's not. The body says "...her responsibilities were largely assumed by Davis. In February, she was detailed to the United States Department of Health and Human Services and formally hired on March 4". I guess that doesn't say she isn't also the acting administrator of DOGE, but it does strongly imply it. So is she the current acting administrator of DOGE or isn't she? As the first sentence of the article and her main reason for notability, I think it's kind of important to get right, no? --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

   Last year, Trump signed an executive order that renamed the United States Digital Service to the United States DOGE Service. From the Plum Book, Gleason is the deputy administrator of the DOGE Service, which automatically makes her the acting administrator in the absence of an appointed administrator; I assume that by avoiding appointing Gleason as the administrator outright, it would have obscured her role in DOGE. She is the acting administrator according to a statement provided in court. The reason why that was in the infobox is because a user assumed that the DOGE Service had been eliminated on July 4, 2026. That isn't exactly true. Trump's order also established the "United States DOGE Service Temporary Organization", which did end on July 4, but the DOGE Service itself still exists because it hasn't been abolished. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there's no reporting that Gleason has been demoted or fired. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

   This is important to make sure we clarify @GRuban - thanks for picking it up. Also the article states "In February, she was detailed to the United States Department of Health and Human Services and formally hired on March 4." so does she have two roles? I wonder whether adding a referenced footnote about the DOGE temporary Org and DOGE would be helpful? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

   Yes, she is the acting administrator of the DOGE Service and an employee at the Department of Health and Human Services. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

   I was checking through the article again, and the infobox states that her term as administrator ended 4 July 2026 - but that isn't referenced in the article. Is she still acting? if so, I think there really does need to be a footnote for clarification @ElijahPepe Lajmmoore (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

   No, she is not, and this is vandalism that has been undone. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

   Sorry @ElijahPepe but I don't think this has been done - the bit about her being a nurse is still there for example and the lead is still overly long imo Lajmmoore (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

   ^ referring to comments on the lead Lajmmoore (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

   I removed some more information, but this is about as far as I can go. Most of this is important to note. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   All assertions are cited inline which are laid out appropriately. There is a mix of styles, but that's due to the addition of two more recent 2026 articles. MoS doesn't insist on a singular referencing style. There's no original research. Earwig detects no plagiarism - some results are quite high e.g. 24% but this is due to the long names of government departments and so on.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think the article covers what is known about about Gleason and her career. It doesn't de-rail into other topics, which is good.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This is a question to the editor/others - the article has little assessment of Gleason's work at DOGE e.g. good/bad/indifferent - is that because the sources don't exist?

   This article is not supposed to offer an assessment of that work, but regardless, it's impossible to gauge how much Gleason actually did at DOGE. The sources show that she didn't do much. It's the reader's responsibility to determine whether what she did was beneficial. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

   Yes, but I think my question (which you have perhaps answered) is really what critique has been made of work? Is the statement "that she didn't do much" corroborated by secondary sources? Of course Wikipedia provides NPOV, but if there is critique (positive or negative or neutral) it should be included. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

   I haven't seen any sources talk about what she did, primarily because she didn't seem to do much of anything at the DOGE Service. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable, although there has been some past non-constructive editing

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There is a picture of Gleason, which is great and is appropriately tagged, but I would suggest one or two more - perhaps about the different departments of offices - there is a DOGE category on Commons.

   The images you describe don't seem relevant to Gleason herself. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

   I made https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Amy_Gleason and uploaded and moved images to it. None are ideal, but some might be useful. I didn't add any to the article, leaving it as your call, folks. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

   but they would be appropriate to the roles she held Lajmmoore (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m going to beg you not to pass this with ElijahPepe’s sfn citations in place. The community is unanimously opposed to them. We’ve pretty much reached the limit of our patience on this. See Talk:Natalie Harp#Cockamamie citation scheme for recent discussion and here and here for older discussions. Mikewem (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

This is an issue that has already been resolved and is not against any Wikipedia policy. You decided that you didn't like them, some other editors joined in, and I agreed not to do them. This is not a valid rationale for closing a GA review. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

No, the issue is not resolved. You changed the citation scheme without consensus. That is disruptive editing and is against Wikipedia policy. I will address this elsewhere but if you agreed not to do them, then why did you do them here? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

This article was rewritten over a year ago and I agreed not to do them earlier this year. Simply using shortened footnotes is not enough to fail an article. There's no criterion about it, and I will dispute any effort to close this review on the basis that this article is using a certain citation scheme. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:35, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I will dispute any effort to pass this review with the sfns still in place per the stated desire of the community. I’m stunned flabbergasted that you haven’t found the will to drop this stick yet. Lajmmoore, please review the linked discussions. Mikewem (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

ElijahPepe, we could avoid a whole lot of "dispute" if you would please correct your edit without consensus. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Mikewem and @SusanLesch thanks for joining the review. My understanding from the links (again thank you) and the discussion is that there is *now* an agreement to not use sfns for news articles, that @ElijahPepe has agreed with, but at the time of writing this article and proposing it for GA that agreement was not in place? (I picked up this review as I saw it had been waiting for a reviewer for over a year)

If I've got the above correct, I think it would be useful to ask the wider GA review community. I say this because the GA criteria don't stipulate which style should be used nor could I see the the sfn help page a piece of explicit guidance that they shouldn't be used for news. Obviously the examples you give above show that there is some consensus on that latter point. If it has been added to some guidelines, would you mind sharing the link? I think the article (with one point below outstanding) reaches GA, but this point on whether not using sfn for articles should be backdated feels like it would benefit from more voices. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Lajmmoore, correct, GAN doesn't require a particular citation scheme, in agreement with WP:CITEVAR, which ia the governing Wikipedia content guideline. Our objection is to Elijah's edit without consensus and thus going against that guideline. His edit summary conceals what was done. ElijahPepe would you please provide a link to your agreement? And why not fix this article and save us all more trouble? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the referencing scheme @ElijahPepe Lajmmoore (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

ElijahPepe, would you please provide a link to your agreement? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

ElijahPepe, obviously you haven't agreed to stop using {{sfn}} with news articles, cf. Margo Martin. You raised the topic of your agreement here, but as it's off topic for this GA review, I'll move my inquiry to User talk:ElijahPepe here. If you had answered my simple request, this discussion wouldn't be so endlessly slippery. It would be over. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I said I would agree not to use shortened footnotes for future articles here. I did not say I woukd go back and change the style on existing articles; I wrote Martin's article about a year ago. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

URL please? Or does your agreement not exist? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:37, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Either that's a typo, or your agreement does not exist. I'm going with the latter. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I believed it was in there because you mentioned that there was "progress" and that I had reverted the edits on some of the articles. The text is at Talk:Lindsey Halligan: Here's what I can do: Since the shortened footnotes keep getting changed back, going forward for every article that I don't have a draft for right now, I won't use shortened footnotes unless there is a book that would require shortened footnotes. We talked about this almost a year ago. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, for cripes sake. Best wishes for your project. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

ElijahPepe, thank you for the fix! I think we'd all agree we owe you a debt of gratitude for your work on the Trump administration. I'd expand that to the whole world, as everybody reads Wikipedia. Much obliged. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• 
  Oct 2015
• 
  From the Obama administration White House page, while she was at CareSync, so 2012-2018
• 
  May 2025, for HHS
• 
  Jul 2025, same picture currently in the article, but I tried to remove the microphone in front of her chin
• 
  With Donald Trump, also Jul 2025; Trump is blurry, but important

GRuban (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @GRuban Lajmmoore (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe I've made a few comments here, and added a few markers - apologies I should have put those in the first time i reviewed, but i missed them. I suspect the reference is the one that comes at the end of the subsequent sentences, but it would be really great if they could be added in Lajmmoore (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Just noting these @ElijahPepe still need double checking Lajmmoore (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

All of those sentences are cited, just not immediately afterwards. That is acceptable and should be done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I just think its very helpful for readers if every sentence is cited in the main body of the article, especially when articles are Good or Featured. I realise it is an additional ask, but I would hope it was not too onerous? Lajmmoore (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That goes against WP:CONSECUTIVECITE, which allows for consecutive sentences to be cited by the same citation so long as WP:TSI is not violated. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you @ElijahPepe but I think when we're looking at articles moving to GA and FA it can be really helpful for the reader. I think with Gleason's article in particular, because there has been some confusion in past edits, having each sentenced referenced will only help readers and the encyclopaedia. I would not request something if I did not think it would be constructive. I see the tags were removed, pleased could you just add in the appropriate reference. It is a few seconds work. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: