Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/GA1

GA Review

Pass - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2024 (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

Nominator: Keivan.f (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review coming soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Tim O'Doherty I hope you will help me wrap up Charlotte's GA review before we proceed with this one? Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - There are still some things to do in Charlotte's first, namely the unreliable refs and some of the prose comments, which should be fairly quick to resolve. Don't worry: I can manage two GANs simultaneously. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty I did implement the changes in the prose and requested you to help me with the two refs as I could not find them on Google myself. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussions about other articles limited to their own space. Keivan.f^Talk 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f Charlotte's article has been passed as GA. So, no worries about that now. I hope that being one of the prime authors of Philip's article I can help with the GA process. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that there is a [page needed] tag in the arms section. Can this be added? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it tomorrow. I had searched for an online version of the book before, but I have to redo it since it seems that I don't have the information on hand anymore. Keivan.f^Talk 03:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a copy of the book anywhere. I have asked another major contributor for their input but I'm afraid it they don't have access to it, then I might have to remove that part. It is not unsourced, but is not 'precisely' sourced either. I guess I'll just hide the text. Keivan.f^Talk 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out no one has access to the book at the moment. I just hid the text in the hope that someone might be able to access it in the future. Keivan.f^Talk 03:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had fixed a whole lot of parameters and cleaned up spaces which were unnecessarily taking up a lot of space. By the way, @Keivan.f what does Tim mean by "third cousins through Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark - this link is freakishly long: can it be more strategically placed?" as no such sentence exists in the article as per WikiBlame. That's the only prose-related comment yet to be resolved. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it. Keivan.f^Talk 04:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. I enjoyed reading this; nicely written. Shortly after Philip's birth, his maternal grandfather, Lord Milford Haven - you've already detailed this above, and could be trimmed to simply "shortly after Philip's birth Lord Milford Haven" or similar. Done Greece suffered significant losses in the war, and the Turks made substantial gains - comma needed? Done The commanding officer of the army, General Georgios Hatzianestis, - since there's only one, you can lose the set of commas. Done also believed to be in danger, and Alice - comma needed? Done Philip's family settled in France, in a house in the Paris suburb - could simplify: "Philip's family settled in a house in the Paris suburb..." Done In 1930, Philip was sent to the United Kingdom - comma again (won't point out the rest of them after this), but you've already spelled out "United Kingdom": "UK" or "Britain" would be fine (my preference is the latter). Done Lord Louis Mountbatten - "Lord Mountbatten"? Not done Sorry about it, but DrKay has reverted it with a suitable edit summary to support his actions. third cousins through Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark - this link is freakishly long: can it be more strategically placed? Done I think the placement is fine, but I removed the degree of cousinship to make the sentence simpler. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Marriage can be merged, I think. "The engagement, announced to the public on 9 July 1947,[42] attracted some controvesy; Philip had no financial standing..." reads slightly better to me, and avoids two consecutive sentences beginning with "The engagement". Done Marion Crawford wrote, "Some of the King's advisors - comma could be a colon. Done In Charles and Diana, I'd also say that the third and fourth paragraph could be merged without issue. Done It was the second and third paragraphs though. There is no fourth paragraph in that section. wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle; wedding of their granddaughter Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank - both of these links, I think, could be reduced down to just linking through "the wedding", and you could add links to the people mentioned too (Harry, Markle, Eugenie and Brooksbank). Done The latter four paragraphs in Final years and retirement all begin with "In [MONTH] [YEAR]": try to vary it a bit. When addressing the Duke of Edinburgh, as with any male member of the royal family except the monarch, the rules of etiquette were to address him the first time as Your Royal Highness and after that as Sir. - is this necessary? Removed That's me for prose. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): A few of the ref titles aren't in sentence case (eg Prince Philip Has a Mouthful Of a Title. And, Often, His Foot -> "Prince Philip has a mouthful of a title. And, often, his foot"). Took care of it. b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): Well the EARWIG is alarmingly high at over 60% presently. @Tim O'Doherty You don't simply look at the score. Most of it is because the page was analyzed against this blog and this website (these three URLs particularly 1, 2, 3), which appear to have copied their info from Wikipedia. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): With Elizabeth on their 1951 tour of Canada, meeting then Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent (right) - per MOS:JOB, "prime minister". Also recommend "the then-prime minister" to avoid a false title (is (right) needed either?). Done Her Majesty the Queen at Breakfast painted by Philip in 1957. Biographer Robert Lacey described the painting as "a tender portrayal, impressionistic in style, with brushstrokes that are charmingly soft and fuzzy". - I'd recommend "his biographer" or "the biographer". Done Philip typically walked a few steps behind Elizabeth in public. - this photo is a bit small at the display size: what would you say about this one? On hold Well the present image seems to be fine as it is. Source link for File:HMS Valiant-2.jpg doesn't work Here's the archived link. Added it to the file itself as well. Can't find File:Prince Philip beard.jpg at its source link either You have to click on the small gallery of images on that page. There are 44 images and it's no. 6. File:Official Opening – Agoriad Swyddogol (28900130516) (cropped).jpg - source link is broken there too. Here's the archived link for that one. File:Her Majesty the Queen at Breakfast.jpg seems fine to me.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Apologies, time got away from me. Spotcheck tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

Forgot about this—sorry. Doing now.

1(a) - Y
21 - Y
41 - (found on Internet Archive) N - says 10 July: is this wrong?
- The articles Elizabeth II and Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten cite page 77 of Heald's 2007 book Princess Margaret: A Life Unravelled (which is incidentally cited in this page as well) and give the date as 9 July. Has the author contradicted himself?
61 - assume this works with the other source.
- The London Gazette is fine. Once you open it up there's a link to a PDF. The information is given in the second column on that page.
81 - IA link, N can't find it
101 - Y
121 - again can't find it: is there something wrong with the editions? The one I'm using is 2004.
141 - Y
161 - Y
181 - Y
201 - Y
221 - Y
241 - Heald yes, Brandreth no.
- Don't have access to the hardcover now, but since you have access to the archived version I do wonder whether you have the same problem verifying the info on the page Elizabeth II. Because the book is cited there too and there is overlap between the two articles. I'm trying to figure out what the issue is.

Few issues to sort out, and wondering what went wrong with Brandreth. Might just be using the wrong edition here. Happy to be corrected. Cheers—Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, was the wrong version. The other works just fine. Will have a look over the full thing tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty I did add the URL, ISBN, and page numbers as suggested by DrKay on your talk page. However, please take another look as I may have overlooked or made a mistake. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was an error. You should have altered it within the bibliography section. User:Neveselbert already took care of it. Keivan.f^Talk 20:00, 18 April 2024 (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.