Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/GA2

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

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Will start review tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Just in case you want to know I don't mind if you don't post comments until next Friday. Also in that scenario how long will it take to pass the article as GA? Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully will be passed before Christmas. Don't want to be doing wiki-work in the immediate run-up to the holidays. So, at most 2-3 weeks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, the sooner we wrap this up the better. The reviewer is free to post comments and you can respond when you are free to do so. The article will be passed when all the issues have been addressed. We still have to work on the prose. Keivan.f^Talk 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I know that the reviewer is free. It's been great so far collaborating with you both. Ideally, the sooner we wrap this up the better. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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.	Some stuff I think is overlong and I'd personally cut, but the grammar, spelling etc looks good after reading through the article
	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.	Ref 406 has an ISSN  Done Removed Inconsistent publication linking  Done De-linked the remaining ones; which is acceptable per MOS:LINKONCE Some have publisher locations, others don't  Done Removed it for online sources Some have quotes and others don't  Done Removed them; mainly to avoid any copyright issues Is Instagram a paywalled source? (at least, I don't think so ... I don't have it) It's not. Usually you can visit a profile and visit a certain amount of photos before being prompted to sign up (which does not require payments). Also, if you have a direct link to a post you should be able to view it without any problems. Ref 361 has a typo  Done The Times is paywalled  Done So is The Sunday Times  Done Remove link in 394?  Done Some publishers are in different parameters  Done I only noticed it with CNN, Sky News, and ABC News, which I changed to "work" for consistency with other news websites cited Some questionable publications up next: Jezebel Replaced Elle UK Cafe Mom Removed Grazia Daily UK Southern Living Replaced Quartz Marie Claire Town & Country The rest of them, namely Elle, Grazia, Quartz, Marie Claire, and Town & Country, are reputable magazines/publications that are suitable for the context within which they are cited (mainly fashion). Herald Sun Replaced Mirror Removed and replaced Especially do not use Fox News.  Done Replaced them with CNN. Also, we have a few refs in the lead. If all this info is verified further down, we could do with cutting them (the lead is, after all, a summary of the sourced content in the body).  Done moved them to the article's body. Nothing controversial anyway
	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).	Everything has a cite inline, sources are reliable per discussion above.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A worryingly high Earwig score at over 40 per cent. Granted, a lot of these are titles, but there are some phrases which should be reworded. Could you be more specific about what you mean to convey? The WP:EARWIG plagiarism checker tool has an unusually high score. You can check to see the what the tool has flagged from the article side-by-side with the sources. Do I need to make any changes or is the "Titles and Styles" section good enough as it is ? That's not what he means by titles. You have to open WP:EARWIG, type in this page's title, and then phrases or words that are too similar to the ones included in an external source will be highlighted in red. I wouldn't classify any of these as 'copyright violations'. Most instances involve the software picking up phrases such as "The Prince and Princess of Wales", "the Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood", or " the Lawn Tennis Association". None of these can be paraphrased but I'll try and see what I can do with the order of things, and maybe change a sentence or two. Alright. I did some paraphrasing and the score has now dropped to 33.8% (i.e. "violation unlikely"). Now it's giving a score of 63.2% when comparing the article to this webpage. However, that article is dated 15 December 2012 and is almost definitely a copy of the Wikipedia article, which had that exact content back in November 2012 (you can check the WP article's history). So, this is them copying WP, not the other way around. Keivan.f You might have taken a shot at making the page more accurate but I have fixed some of your revisions. Say, for example, the starting line under "Early Life and Education" and the patronage of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club were accurate and perfect just as it was(see my justification). Also the phrase "to mark" World Mental Health Day was all right. So just making sure you know what I have actually done. I had rather prefer the present revisions which combined with your own make the page clearer and concise. By the way, I hope you understand. I am adhering more to WP standards with this because its only accurate and perfect just as it is. Also please consider providing edit summaries the next time you make edits. It helps. If you have noticed that I have done so for each edit. No, I was not solely taking a shot at making the page "more accurate". I was trying to alter the parts that could be considered WP:Copyvios. Yes, sometimes certain sentences would sound better (I can read English so I can tell), but if they are too close to the ones published by other sources that could result in WP:Copyvios issues and the page failing the GA nomination. Nevertheless, I ran the page on WP:EARWIG again and got a score of 35.9%, so we're good at this stage. Thanks for spending time to correct any potential typos though. Editing at night is not the ideal thing to do, but I had to do something about the reviewer's concerns immediately.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Have some further comments on this I'll add over the coming days. Well Tim yesterday I had to clear up all those details because we have a page describing Catherine's fashion and also because it was an anomaly to have a more info relevant with respect to Catherine's fashion on the main article rather than on the one concerned with only her fashion. Hence I have retained only those parts which speak of her influence and popularity on the main page under "Public image and style" and just ledt a brief starting line as such for fashion while mentioning that there is an entire article for that. Further, I also cut down on the Christmas Carols section previously as it had a lot of irrelevant and trivial matter in there. Nothing more and hoping for the best. By the way, I have had no contact with Keivan since yesterday.[Notifying] Glad that a lot of the nitty-gritty is now gone. I've made clear I'm not a great fan of the formula of "they did this then that" but what can you do. Will do some source spotchecks soon and then pass. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)  Done - checked refs no. 7, 28, 65, 96, 228, 294, 301 and 350, all of which were fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some big things are happening in the article history, but nothing so egregious that I have to fail this.
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.	File:Kate Natural History II.jpg and File:Wildlife crop II.png - is the Natural History Museum covered by OGL? This is what I found on their website: Any use of Information from the Website should be accompanied by appropriate attribution to the copyright owner and source of the Information, and, where relevant, details of the licence under which it is used. The NHM is unable to license third party intellectual property on the Website. Requests to re-use third party intellectual property should be directed to the rights holder(s) concerned. I personally don't think the images can be used but maybe there's something I'm missing. I'll wait for the reviewer to have a look at their website and then we proceed from there. Keivan, it can be that the person who put up this image got it from a news article on the web or some other source such as Google Images rather than directly from the NHM. Also this picture's been there for quite some time and nobody has actually raised this doubt. So it might be usable but in case it is not where do we get an alternative from? True, but in both cases the URL provided for the images as a source is from the NHM website itself, thus I had to pull up their terms and conditions. Everyone's welcome to take a look at it. Another step would be to consult the images' uploaders and ask for their rationale. If none of these work and it turns out there are potential licensing issues, then we have to go through the Commons and find some suitable replacements. Hm. We also have The NHM or its licensors or contributors own the copyright and all other intellectual property rights in the Marks and Information on the Website. Not sure what "Marks" means. In any case, I don't see that saying on the licence page that the images are OGL is correct. There's no shortage of images of Catherine on Commons, though. Might consider replacing. Ok lets say that we have to replace the images. But we have to in that case and at present I don't clearly see any two images and specifically ones related to Catherine's charities. Even leaving the place blank would not be commendable. Hence Tim if you can would you mind suggesting any possible images from Commons which will make a suitable replacement? Also could you please explain to me in a nutshell how you could deduce that the two images are not for use and that too given the images have been here for long? Also shouldn't in that case the two images be nominated for deletion from Commons? I am just raising a few issues. Yes, they probably would have to be nominated for deletion. Dodgy images get through all the time, it's not really a surprise here. As for other images, File:The Duke and Duchess Cambridge at Commonwealth Big Lunch on 22 March 2018 - 120.jpg could be a replacement candidate. Also could you please explain to me in a nutshell how you could deduce that the two images are not for use and that too given the images have been here for long? I asked this also. The NHM is not part of the British government and therefore it was suspect that the images were marked as OGL. Removed those two and replaced them with the suggested image and this one from Wimbledon
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Suggest adding alts Visiting the Natural History Museum's "Urban Wildlife" project - bit detailed, could trim. Additionally, do we need two NHM pics? I think we first need to deal with the licensing issue. Maybe we will be forced to toss both of them. Four successive generations of the Princess's ancestors had lived at Potternewton Hall Estate, near Leeds - this is a sentence, so needs a full stop per MOS:CAPFRAG.  Done
	7. Overall assessment.

Some other comments

Things of questionable relevance:

• While at Marlborough, she underwent an operation on the left side of her head, reportedly to remove a lump.

Trivial and hence have been removed. Thanks for suggesting.

• Prior to her marriage, Middleton lived in an apartment owned by her parents in Chelsea, London, alongside her sister, which was estimated to be worth £1–1.4 million.

Relevant at least under Early life where its mentioned

I think details about where she lived are relevant, but the price can be omitted. It is an estimate after all.

• She reportedly caught William's eye at a charity fashion show at the university in 2002 when she appeared on the stage wearing a see-through lace dress.

Relevant as it speaks of their first contact with each other and how William came to know her

• She attended William's Passing Out Parade at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on 15 December 2006.

Relevant as to how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend

• She and her family attended the Concert for Diana in July 2007, where she and William sat two rows apart.

Relevant because it speaks of how Middleton attended William's mother's concert despite their rumoured breakup at that time and how they exhibited their breakup by sitting apart

• On 17 May 2008, Middleton attended the wedding of William's cousin Peter Phillips to Autumn Kelly in William's stead, and met Queen Elizabeth II for the first time.

Again relevant because it shows how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend

• Middleton attended the Order of the Garter procession at Windsor Castle in June 2008, where William was made a Royal Knight of the Garter.

Relevant as to how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend

• On 19 July 2008, she was a guest at the wedding of Lady Rose Windsor and George Gilman while William was away on military operations in the Caribbean, serving aboard HMS Iron Duke.

Relevant as to how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend even in Will's absence

• Her wedding dress was designed by Sarah Burton at Alexander McQueen.

Alexander McQueen is one of her go-to fashion labels and her association with Sarah Burton as significant. Why, she even wore Burton's garments to the Coronation and her outfits have played a major role in Catherine's fashion. Hence this should stay.

• Catherine keeps bees on the grounds of Anmer Hall.

Her brother apparently does the same thing, so it's sort of a family tradition. I think it is a notable personal activity, but if everyone insists on removing it, then I guess we can toss it away.

• Renovations took 18 months at a cost of £4.5 million.

Discussing the renovations without the cost despite it being known makes space for lesser accuracy. Also the renovations were public money note it. But this info is above all relevant

• She remained in hospital for three days.

Removed. The length of stay was not needed in this case.

(Done down to Duchess of Cambridge)

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by nomination?

Per WP:GAI, if the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination. @MSincccc is currently both the author of 1.7% of the article and ranks 8th. I've both skimmed through and tried searching some keywords but could not find any post by MSincccc about GA on this article's talkpage. There are previous discussions they participated in, though. If this is a bad call, sorry. Otherwise, @Tim O'Doherty, are you going to continue the review? Aintabli (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli I am one of the top 10 in terms of authorship and have made the second largest number of edits to the page. Also I have made my stand clear on almost every discussion on the talk page these past two years that too regularly. I don't see any reason why my status as nominator should be considered drive-by? Both I and Keivanf. who is also working on the page have significantly contributed to this article. Further, I have mentioned the GA on the talk page. In all means, I am a very eligible nominator. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are the guidelines, which base it on authorship (top 5) and not number of edits. Could you link the talkpage entry you've mentioned the GA. If you have kind of asked for permission there (I'm not sure if that is what the guidelines refer to simply as post), that could mean you are eligible. Aintabli (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ask user Keivanf. He is the most significant contributor both in terms of authorship and edits and he is fine with my GA nomination. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused if you asked them about it anywhere. In any case, I'm going to ping @Keivan.f. If they give some permission here and now, all could be good. @Chipmunkdavis, would you agree that getting permission during a review is okay? Aintabli (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That would not a problem. The point of the drive-by restriction is to ensure the time of a reviewer is not wasted through nominators being unfamiliar with an article and its sources. So long as the nominator and other article editors are able to effectively field the review, there is no need to be bureaucratic about the timing of any agreement to collaborate on the GAN. CMD (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis But I am very much familiar with the article and you can check my edit statistics for that reason as well. Also I am actively helping the reviewer along with Keivan. Just that the reviewer is presently engaged and will not be available during weekdays for now. Also once the prose is fixed to full accuracy he will be passing the page as GA. I have justified my contribs to the page multiple times before today itself. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to further discuss. If Keivan.f sees this and gives a thumbs up like CMD, the review will continue. Aintabli (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, although judging from the above table the reviewer still intends to look at a bit more than just prose. As I noted on WT:GAN, don't worry too much about this side-discussion. The drive-by rule of thumbs are intended to ensure that a reviewer receives effective engagement, so as long as that is occurring things will move along fine. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So is this matter done with? I have notified you of my immense contribs to the page since late 2021. MSincccc (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't expect anything to happen here. Aintabli made a good faith check-in and they received an answer they appear satisfied with. Please do continue with your efforts to improve this article. Best, CMD (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli, CMD Thank you so much for showing interest in the review process for this article. Well, as Aintabli pointed out, MSincccc did not meet the criteria to nominate this article to begin with. But, it was my aim to bring it to GA status anyway. I believe they made the nomination in good faith and were supportive in bringing William's article to GA status. I really did not want to be possessive and put up hurdles just because I'm not the nominator, so I have been helping them along the way. Hopefully we'll be able to finish this review in a week or two. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 13:50, 13 December 2023 (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.