Talk:Oval Office Swedish ivy

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 talk 20:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama with the Oval Office Swedish ivy
Barack Obama with the Oval Office Swedish ivy
Moved to mainspace by Wasianpower (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Moved to mainspace as new same day as nomination. Long enough, sourced, neutral, and plagiarism-free. Hooks are cited and interesting. Image is freely licensed and clear for viewing. QPQ complete. My only "complaint", if you could call it that, is some of the most important information about the plant is missing from the "Plant" section. In other words, in addition to being a mystery as to how it got into the White House in the first place, it's also a mystery how the plant itself came to be known as Swedish ivy, as it's neither Swedish (it's native to South Africa) nor ivy (it's related to mint and sage).[1] Andersen's original 1984 piece for Time also goes into more detail that could be used in the plant section: it's low maintenance (it needs little care); it loves to be close to the light (the window facing the Rose Garden is to the left of it); it gets watered every day in the morning and gets fertilizer (20-20-20) once a month and is misted every six weeks; no insecticide is needed; it gets pruned back on top occasionally to preserve the visual sight of the Charles Wilson Peale painting of Washington hanging above it (is the painting still there?) Despite all of this, the plant is not the only one, and is rotated with another, but both are eventually replaced after some time (five years? It's unclear).[2] No real preference on the hooks, but I like ALT0 and ALT2. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review @Viriditas! I'll do a pass tonight to incorporate these suggestions. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:Oval Office Swedish ivy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wasianpower (talk · contribs) 19:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 10:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on this as I saw it come into GAN and ended up reading it through, so I may as well give it a review. It's certainly looks to be in good shape, so I'm sure it won't be too much trouble.

Prose and content

  • I believe that comments in leads (and elsewhere) such as "was subject to criticism" are too vague to be helpful to readers. "Critics characterized its removal as breaking a tradition" or "the replacement with golden decorations was criticised for what was perceived to be a lack of good taste" etc, depending on what sources are saying / emphasizing are more helpful, ideally as concisely as you can muster.
    Took a stab at this. Let me know what you think. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, and okay for GA imo, although the question of "emblematic in what way" which may fall afoul of though not by teasing the reader in MOS:LEAD as we're not really identifying what their problem with the removal was.
    Done Green tickY
  • The plant section needs some more careful application of MOS:DATED, given that we can't know how the plants care continued over the 40 years following the source's publication.
    Done, I think the information about the plant rotation is fairly safe to assume they continued, but let me know if you disagree. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on plant rotation being fairly safe, but I'm not so sure about "usually planted on the White House's East Lawn". - RIHG
    Done, with a minor reorganization Green tickY
  • "It typically sat on the fireplace mantel of the Oval Office, and various pots of the ivy rotated through the office", "The plant usually sat": I read typically and usually as "not always": is this intended? If so, where else was it placed?
    I'm not sure why I was so hesitant with the language there. Done Green tickY
  • "and replaced with a new propagation" this can be cut as implied.
    Shortened to "and replaced." 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think providing a date for the Gerald Ford administration would help an international audience see how far the earliest images are from the story.
    Done Green tickY 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the Time piece, it sure seems like Irvin Williams, the head gardener during the Kennedy administration, is saying it was introduced in that period. Do you get the same reading? Do you think it merits changing the article text in any way? Either way, it's a good wikilink for Irv Williams.
      Yeah, I agree that it does sound that way. I'm not sure how to include this information without verging into WP:OR though, given that it requires a bit of extrapolation from the fact that he chose his "before" point at the president before Kennedy. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a bit ambiguous, although the article to me does seem to be quoting Williams as testifying to the installation during the Kennedy era. - RIHG
      I think I've found a way to include it without verging into OR, let me know if you think there are any issues with it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "another variety of ivy" per our article on Plectranthus verticillatus, it seems contested whether this is indeed a "variety of ivy".
    Changed to just say it was grape ivy. Green tickY
  • The placement of "The plant had stayed on the mantel throughout Trump's first term in office." is strange, can a note on its presence be mentioned in the usage section?
    Done Green tickY
  • You can better establish the significance of Sneeringer's letter.
  • And a better job at establishing the removal was part of a broader redecoration of the Oval Office, not a simple replacement.
    Tried to better incorporate the significance of the Sneeringer letter (there's a bit of subtlety here, because while it was one of the first mentions that the Ivy was gone in the public sphere, there's nothing that it was explicitly the "first" to do), and the idea that that it was removed as part of the overall redecoration. Let me know what you think. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A few comments:
    • The prose in "One of the first to make note of the disappearance was a letter to the editor" is a bit clumsy, it was Sneeringer rather than the letter making note.
    • You can cut the year as the reader will assume it is still in 2025 unless otherwise stated.
    • The lead still reads as it being a simple replacement.
    - RIHG
    Done Green tickY

Suggestions

  • "not in use" perhaps "not on display"?
    Done Green tickY
  • Probably further than needed under the prose requirement of GA, but I think the #Plant section is a bit repetitive in its discussion of rotations and greenhouse growing, would you be willing to have a go at tightening it up?
    Took a stab at it. Let me know if you think it needs further tightening. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you did a great job. - RIHG
  • the plant "loves the light" fussily, I would prefer [loved] here.
    Done Green tickY
  • I think under the illusion of the body being self-standing, you should probably gloss Plectranthus verticillatus as Swedish ivy.
    Done Green tickY
  • I struggle to see what having an infobox adds here: all the information is in the title or the first five words.
    Fair enough. Done Green tickY
  • If you're a fan of redlinks like me, the Bill Clinton portrait seems an appropriate subject as it seems to easily meet GNG.
    Love a good redlink, but I can't find a good way to logically link it currently without removing the links to Nelson Shanks article. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "In a presidential portrait of Clinton by Nelson Shanks"? - RIHG
    Turns out there's a new article from less than a month ago about this painting! Bill Clinton (portrait), I have linked it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the disinterest among White House occupants as of the 1980s described in the Time piece quite interesting.
    Added Green tickY
  • Watch out for MOS:CURRENTLY around the Instagram account.
    Done Green tickY
  • Remove the .pdf from the JSTOR url to prevent the PDF symbol showing up.
    Done Green tickY
  • Way in suggestion territory here, but using sfn when the items are not paginated mainly just adds bloat to reference sections. I'm trying to move away from it in my editing. Alternatively, think about directly linking referencing and linking to pages in the Time piece.
    I think this is reasonable, but at least now I have one book source to justify it 😅

Sources

  • I might be missing it in the sources, but how do we know the removal was in February and not January? E.g., the Washington Post article says "by February", which identifies a later bounding.
    Good point, removed the date and instead just noted it as "towards the start of" Trump's presidency while keeping the date that the removal was noticed. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked claims and read sources as I went, which I will use as my spotcheck rather than formally lay one out.

Other

  • Broadness/overdetail Green tickY No concerns for overdetail, I've looked for unused sources in a few places and within sources and haven't found any major aspects missing.
  • Photos Green tickY Should be okay. If I were to be fussy, the photo of Trump and Netanyahu is uploaded by Scavino, but no indication is given that he took them (and indeed, there's no chance he's leaning over the table to compose shots of the two reflected across the table). Still clearly reasonable to assume the photos were produced by the staff as indicated in the copyright tag.
  • Stability Green tickY
  • Neutrality Green tickY Although the removal does appear to take an outsized part of the lead relative to its treatment in the body, though not really enough to affect GA status.
    I expanded the lede a bit from some of the other sections to try to balance it out a bit. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work. You may also consider The plant was removed from the Oval Office → The plant was removed from public view to the White House greenhouse, which will permit cutting the final sentence. While re-reading the lead, it occurs to me that as an editorial matter in focusing the subject more tightly on the plant rather than its removal, you may want to move the "Several critics of Trump criticized his removal..." to the part of the lead discussing the plant's reputation, and discuss the criticisms through the lens of the plant's attributes and symbolism than what the commentators felt it revealed about Trump. I think both are valid, and you should go with whatever looks better to you. - RIHG
    Done Green tickY
  • No OR / COPYVIO Green tickY none seen as I read, and earwig is only really catching quotes.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 10:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave, thank you so much for taking this review! I will begin working on this feedback this evening, really appreciate it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and please feel free to push back on anything you don't see as an improvement. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 22:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave - I believe I've addressed all the comments! Please let me know your thoughts at your leisure :) 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for being so receptive to my suggestions. I've left a few comments above. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave, thank you for the suggestions! I believe I've addressed everything, let me know what you think. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking great, passing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oval_Office_Swedish_ivy