Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/GA1

GA Review

This article passes its GA nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2019 (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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi. I'm going to do this review. COI disclaimer: I'm a fan of suits, but I think that's okay --DannyS712 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

Partly done The "Titles, styles, and arms" has a lot of whitespace when the coat of arms is collapsed. Can we reduce that?

Can we combine eliminate the collapse of the arms, and combine the two sections. It looks really bare, with just 1.5 lines of text, and then the centered caption

Yes, I too have noticed that there is still a lot of white space, but I do not know why. Your suggestion seems very reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I noticed you removed the section break, but not the collapsing. Why? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was an extensive discussion about the coats of arms and they way they are explained, resulting in the consensus to keep them collapsed. I am afraid I cannot point you to this discussion without spending some time looking it up, but if you check related articles, you will notice it is the standard. We could remove the collapsing, but I am sure doing so would mean stepping on a lot of toes. Surtsicna (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done The second image ("Markle at a panel discussion of Suits, Paley Center for Media, 2013") - the right side of the image isn't the best quality, with an odd cutoff or something. I'm not a photography person, but can this be improved at all?
Done Lede - Sussex on her marriage to - on? shouldn't this be "upon"

Early life (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Done As of 2017, her mother - update Done that her "dad is Caucasian and my mom is African American. I'm half black - pronoun switch. Introduce with 'that "my..."' or something else Done a bachelor's degree and a double major in theater the bachelor's degree isn't separate from the double major, maybe "degree, double majoring in" instead

Acting career (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Markle deftly and "actively re-positioned" her character from ingenue to "the show's moral conscience" and gave viewers

Done "deftly" isn't in the article, likely editorializing, suggest removal
Done "ingenue" -> "ingénue"

Personal life (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done They married in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, - misuse of the verb "to marry", see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marry. It should be "They were married"
Request withdrawn His grandmother Elizabeth II is queen - need commas -> "grandmother, Elizabeth II, is"
Done The statement described sexism, racism and defamatory stories directed at her. what does this have to do with anything? unneeded

It has to do with the preceding sentence. It may be a good idea to merge the sentences. Surtsicna (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Then please do so --DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even combined, In November, the British royal family's communications secretary released an official statement that addressed sexism, racism, and defamatory stories directed toward Markle., it still makes little sense. How is this connected to the previous sentence (The couple met on a blind date set up by a mutual friend.) or the next (In September 2017, they appeared together in public for the first time an official royal engagement at the Invictus Games in Toronto, Canada.)?

I have rearranged the paragraph so that the sentence comes after He was then fifth in line to the British throne; his grandmother Elizabeth II is queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms, as well as Head of the Commonwealth. It then ties into Harry's background (since it mentions the British royal family for the first time). The entire paragraph is a chronology of their relationship. This statement was the official confirmation of their relationship. Besides, Wikipedia should surely report that the coverage of their relationship was so nasty that it warranted an intervention by the Palace. Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done The ring Harry gave Markle was made by Cleave & Company Ltd, and consists of a large central diamond from Botswana, with two smaller diamonds from the jewellery collection of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. unneeded trivia

I'm going to stop here. This article needs a general copy edit before I proceed. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and public life (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Done Members of the royal family are politically neutral by convention, and Dickie Arbiter, former press secretary to Prince Charles, expects the Duchess to follow suit. - need a citation for specific claim
Partly done Markle joined Harry for the first time during an official public appearance after their engagement at a walkabout in Nottingham on December 1, 2017,[65][66] in connection with World AIDS Day.[67] - awkward phrasing, especially with the multiple citations in the middle

Now its Markle made her first official public appearance with Harry after the engagement at a World AIDS Day walkabout in Nottingham on December 1, 2017. This is better, but still hard to parse. What about "After the engagement, Markle's first official public appearance with Harry was at a World AIDS day..."?

Markle joined Harry for the first time during an official public appearance after their engagement at a walkabout in Nottingham on December 1, 2017, in connection with World AIDS Day. In early 2018, she accompanied him on his engagements in Brixton, Cardiff, Goldsmiths' Hall, and Edinburgh. On February 28, the couple attended an official engagement at the first annual forum of The Royal Foundation, "Making a Difference Together". She became the foundation's fourth patron, alongside Harry and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, after her marriage into the royal family. Markle and Harry marked International Women's Day by attending an event in Birmingham hosted by the Stemettes. Along with the Queen and other members of the royal family, she attended the Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey on March 12. The couple made their first visit to Northern Ireland on March 23. Markle carried out a total of 26 public engagements prior to the wedding.
The Duchess's first official engagement after the wedding came on May 22 when she and her husband celebrated the charity work of his father, Prince Charles. Her first trip abroad at the request of the British government was to Dublin, Ireland, in July. According to a review in The Irish Times, her visit became a unique national obsession.
The Duchess takes part in her husband's work as youth ambassador to the Commonwealth, which includes overseas tours. The first such trip was to Australia, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand in October 2018. Despite the low support for the monarchy in Australia, the couple were greeted by crowds in Sydney, and the announcement of the Duchess's pregnancy hours after their arrival was received enthusiastically by the public and media. - this is a lot of detail, that I don't think is warranted. Most of the first paragraph is trivia, and the last sentence of the second is likewise not encyclopedic in nature

I agree that the first paragraph contains a lot of fluff. We do not need to chronicle every step she makes, and the article should not sound like a diary. That said, I am not sure what exactly to remove and what to retain. Feel free to remove whatever you consider trivial. Could you please explain why you do not consider the last sentence encyclopedic? It summarizes the reports of two reputable sources, and adds context that ensures the paragraph does not sound like a diary entry (they went here, then there, then here...). Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I think the spacing resulted in us talking about 2 different sentences. I'm referring to According to a review in The Irish Times, her visit became a unique national obsession. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, of course. That sentence is indeed an eyesore. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its still a bit long. Can we trim it some more?

I've trimmed it some more and it does not seem too long any more. If there still remain sentences that seem unnecessary, please point them out. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion and style (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done The lines, based on her personal style, and that of her Suits character, described as "aspirational girl next door", quickly sold out. - I'm a big fan of commas, but this is a lot, making it hard to parse
Done Markle cited Emmanuelle Alt as her style inspiration in 2017. - what about her inspiration in 2016? who was it in 2018? Suggest: "In 2017, Markle..."
Request withdrawn the Duchess appeared in a Karen Gee dress - most of the article, and the section, refers to her as Markle

The article refers to her as "Markle" when discussing her life before she became Duchess of Sussex and as "the Duchess" afterwards. Compare with Hillary Clinton and Pope Francis, who are referred to as "Rodham" and "Bergoglio" where appropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charity work (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ssuggest shortening a bit, the 4th paragraph is fine, but the first 3 are really specific. Maybe just touch on the highlights? Eg "In 2016, after a trip to India focused on raising awareness for women's issues, Markle wrote an op-ed for Time magazine concerning stigmatization of women in regard to menstrual health." We don't need to know about every trip she made...

Agreed! Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Okay. Its not a big deal --DannyS712 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its still a bit long. Can we cut it down some more?

Yes, of course. I've trimmed it down a bit more. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

likely to use her role as a member of the royal family to continue - potential WP:CRYSTAL violation. Also, can you rephrase the 4th paragraph. Looking over it now, it sounds off. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That has been pretty much announced by the Palace via the official website. The only thing I would change about that sentence is replace "likely to" with "will". The fourth paragraph is a recent addition; I've removed the fluff. Surtsicna (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Request withdrawn On her mother's side, the Duchess of Sussex - she is referred to as Markle in the rest of the article

Explained above. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: But ancestry doesn't change - it was the same before she got married, whereas her appearance in the dress was only after the marriage. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. One could argue, however, that her ancestry is only noteworthy because she is now Duchess of Sussex, i.e. a member of the British royal family. That is why we have an article called Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn Filmography section - given that a lot of this is covered in the prose, could we have this be a separate article and just a short summary here? The tables stand out, in part because they are narrow, and in part because its just a list (like other filmography sections, but see Sean Connery#Filmography for precedent (you would want to add a summary though)

Do you think there is enough for a new article? Her filmography is not nearly as extensive as Connery's and is unlikely to expand. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: If its not, then idk... maybe put the tables side by side, move the prose about her acting work to that section, and collapse the tables by default? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the prose so far down would not work because the chronology would become messed up. Her acting career should not come after her royal marriage. I do not think putting the tables side by side is possible, but I am no expert. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: It should be. See Help:Table#Positioning. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712, it won't work for me. I thought it might be due to the width of the first table, but fiddling with that did not help either. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: please see the rest of the review. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please note here when you have fixed the issues noted above, and once I confirm that I will strike them. Please do not just remove them yourself. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, DannyS712. I have addressed all the issues. The article was copy-edited by Twofingered Typist on 3 August 2018. Surtsicna (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Can you continue the copy edit beyond where I stopped. Its not very efficient for my notes to focus on grammatical or spelling errors, etc, but they do need to get fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with all of your grammar and spelling concerns. For example, "on marriage" is fine, though I have replaced it with "upon marriage". There should be no commas before and after the name of Harry's grandmother because she is not his only grandmother. I do believe Twofingered Typist did a good job copy-editing the article. Surtsicna (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: That copy edit was months ago. a lot has changed. My point is just that it should be copy edited beyond the last note I gave. We may disagree on "on marriage" or commas, so I'm just requesting that you copy edit the rest of the article so I don't have to point out every time I think something is wrong, because I'll know that it was an intentional choice. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twofingered Typist informed me today that she or he copy-edited the article again. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Please see the updated notes DannyS712 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Any update? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a message to you on 7 January. It seems you did not see it. Surtsicna (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I saw that edit on my watchlist, but there is still other stuff left I thought you were still working on it. In the future please ping me when you have responded to all of the remaining notes, so that I know to check back. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Please see update review --DannyS712 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I think its just the one charity work section left. Fix that, then I'll reread it all, and hopefully pass it! --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I'm going to reread it soon --DannyS712 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (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.