Talk:T. Elliot Gaiser

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.

---

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

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 06:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 06:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

start, background I have previously informally reviewed this so it will be a bit faster.Czarking0 (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The testimony line was rewritten. The point was to describe his position within the Trump administration. As far as that document, I'm not sure that was ever released. In McEnany's testimony, it appears to be Exhibit 109. I'll need to look back at what Bloomberg Law wrote. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 07:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Just the part about the other college he attended now and then I think it is a pass Czarking0 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0: Could you elaborate? There is a sentence on the college he attended. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

He attended two colleges you removed the sentence about the first one a while back Czarking0 (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The article says, "He later attended the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, transferring into the University of Chicago Law School after a year." elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 07:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah you are right. What about covering his personal life? His DoJ page says he has a wife and kids. Czarking0 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I did find his wife and their exact wedding date in 2018, but nothing from a reliable source. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Appears as though other editors have been adding statements some without citations. I believe that is fixed now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think, now with some of the not well cited claims removed, the produced a document that alleged fraud claim is too vague. Here are old sources used. Also the supreme court's decision on the case he argued is obviously of interest and the claim should be restored with a source Czarking0 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I readded the information about the Supreme Court. I couldn't find any sources that mentioned the document, so I rewrote the sentence. I would rather not use testimony as a source. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

After independent searching, I agree with the direction you took this in Czarking0 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Authorship and copyvivo are good.Czarking0 (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Spot checks

• He interned for The Heritage Foundation  Done
• In law school, he worked for Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, later working appellate cases for the office of the Ohio solicitor general  Done though I think you should add a second source since this others in the article verify parts of this.
• White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany testified that she considered him an expert on constitutional law.  Done
• On October 18, 2023, Dave Yost, the attorney general of Ohio, named Gaiser as the state's solicitor general.[15] He was sworn into office in November.[10] In February 2025, Gaiser argued before the Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.  Done I count this as multiple claims

Coverage

I think everything is covered I did some independent googling to check. He is a young man so this will probably change but for now it is good.

Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	This one needs and inline The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, rejecting Gaiser's position. I removed another one that was a BLP violation. Assuming you plan to restore with an inline citation, can you provide a quote to verify the claims about the third party living person and the document's allegations  Done discussed above
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	a document that alleged fraud by multiple state officials It may be worth saying more about this document The fact he attended a different college for a year should not have been removed.  Done
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In her deposition before the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany testified that Is this just a super long attribution? I don't really understand the point of this line and I think it could be expressed more concisely. Done
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Sticks to sources and uses good sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Little in the way of reverts
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	US gov photo only
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good job and thanks

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.