Talk:William, Prince of Wales/GA1

GA Review

Pass - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2023 (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

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will start review tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty As of now, the lead seems alright with accurate URLs. Given that I am part of the review just like Keivan.f I would love to help regarding the review and actively participate as put forth yesterday. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty also I have gone through the "Public Image" section. It’s accurate with solid references as Keivan.f put it previously. MSincccc (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, but it's not just about references. The sections might need to be trimmed down in accordance with WP:MOS. We cannot order the reviewer around. You have to let them do their job and you in return will implement the necessary changes alongside me if I cannot catch up with the feedback on time. That's the way it works. For now the changes suggested for the lead are complete. We have to wait for more comments. Keivan.f^Talk 02:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty For the second change, instead of "William was made Duke of Cambridge immediately before his wedding to Middleton in 2011" a more accurate phrase would be "William was made Duke of Cambridge immediately before his wedding in April 2011." Catherine Middleton has already been mentioned. So rather than even mentioning "Middleton" it would be more accurate to use the new phrase. Also mentioning the month is only appropriate here though the exact date is not to be mentioned here. Further this phrase make it clear that he wed Middleton:He earned a Master of Arts degree in geography at the University of St Andrews where he met his future spouse, Catherine Middleton. So "to Middleton" is unnecessary. MSincccc (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan.f and Tim O'Doherty, my recent edits include adding "Prince" and "Princess" before the names of William and Catherine's children given the latter gave us the discretion "but I'll leave that to you as it's not part of the MoS and I can't withhold GA status based on that." But the same can't be done for Elizabeth II as she was born "Princess Elizabeth", became Duchess and only Queen upon her father's 1952 demise. But William and Catherine's children have been so called since their birth. Hence, it would be more accurate to mention "Prince" and "Princess" before their names in lead of their parents' articles for the time being unless they receive new titles later. MSincccc (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they have held the titles since birth, but that doesn't mean we are obliged to use them. IMO the lead would be more fluid without. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosbif73 But retaining the titles doesn't make much of a difference. After all, the children have no other titles. The present lead is accurate indeed. MSincccc (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't put those titles in running text. MOS:HONORIFIC. DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - I've added them back, but not too fussed: if you really want them, add them back and I won't object. My reasoning was based on brevity in the lead and the fact this is a biography: we want the names of his children, not the full titles you might find on an RF webpage. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty I agree to your edit now. Made similar changes to Catherine's page. By the way, what's the use of "if you really want them, add them back and I won't object" when I actually see some other editor reverting them some point of time later. Anways this form is accurate. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what's the use of [...] when I actually see some other editor reverting them some point of time later.: could it be that we don't actually have consensus one way or the other? In that case, the status quo or the advice of a third party (here the GA reviewer) should apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviewer shouldn't act as a WP:3O. I've never seen a GA go like this with active editing happening in parallel to the GA review. Editors should stand back, let the review happen and then contemplate the results. DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given we know that's something is for sure to take place, making those necessary changes don't harm. For instance, Heads Together might not be the most significant among William's ambitions (hence only Earthshot is mentioned in lead), it is Catherine's best known programme till date given her work on Early Childhood and Shaping Us is still in growth changes. So one should actually be seeing specifically to whom the article belongs before making an edit which in this case is purely justified and accurate. MSincccc (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa - has this been posted somewhere? Why are there two (you and Rosbif73) uninvolved editors commenting in the review? Not that you're not welcome (more reviewers is a good thing) but I find it a bit strange. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??!! It';s on the article talk page. "Uninvolved"?? What are you defining as "involved"? Anyone can comment in a GA of course: WP:GAN#N4. That's is a super strange comment. This is not some private show between you and MSincccc. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessly aggressive there. Just a question, as I've never had five people comment in a single GAN. Didn't know if this had been posted to a WikiProject or to editors' talkpages (as happened with Charles III), so thought I'd ask. Yes, I know it's on the talkpage, as with all GANs. And MSincccc is not the nominator either, Keivan.f is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone watching the article talk page is likely to comment - that's normal. not sure what GARs you've seen. It's also posted at Wikipedia:Good article nominations to attract further attention. DeCausa (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, it's not normal to get talk page watchers commenting, even on large articles. Again, I don't care that you're here (you're perfectly welcome) but like I said, 5 commenters is abnormal, even when it's within the rules. I've never been involved in a GAR, and that's besides the point. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Often. In my 13 years here. I'm not just a watcher, by the way. I've edited it too. DeCausa (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a GA go like this with active editing happening in parallel to the GA review. Editors should stand back, let the review happen and then contemplate the results. We don't need to contemplate about reasonable or necessary changes when they can be implemented immediately. That is not to say that I will blindly agree to whatever it is that the reviewer might be suggesting, but since the review is proceeding slowly it makes sense to respond to the posted comments at the moment rather than wait for endless days until the whole review is complete. I've seen it done with multiple reviews. That being said, DeCausa is right to some extent. All the back and forth on the article history makes the page appear rather unstable. As the nominator, it is my obligation to read all the comments but I'd really appreciate it if multiple people do not edit and revert at the same time. That will only result in this page failing the review. Keivan.f^Talk 20:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm glad that this review has grabbed the attention of other interested editors. Even though the initial reviewer is the only person who can pass it as a GA, additional constructive comments are definitely welcome. Keivan.f^Talk 21:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty I am just making suggestions and not giving any orders mark it. But I would prefer that we get done with this review by the end of the weekend or within 3-4 days now. I hope we can with our collaboration and accurate contributions. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - Been a bit busy IRL recently, will review when I get some spare time. Apologies again for being slow, find myself stretched quite thin these last few months. Can review some bits now. Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's out of my hands. I will implement the changes once new comments are available. We don't have a strict timeframe for any reviews, but just like anyone else I would like to see it wrapped up sooner rather than later. Let's be patient though. Keivan.f^Talk 14:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty I am not ordering around but given that its been some time now since the last comments, I just wanted to notify that I have gone through the "Public Image" section thoroughly and find the length to be accurate. Also if I am not wrong it was Keivan who had previously stated that the section has solid sources which should not be removed back in September. MSincccc (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely has solid sources. But a third opinion is required to evaluate the significance of the information included in that section. Not to mention that that part wasn't written by me. Keivan.f^Talk 14:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f By the way, if I am there around I can implement the changes, isn't it? Not necessarily that only you will be taking all the load on your arms. Also your previous revisions had a few typos and grammatical errors fixed by me. MSincccc (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to share the workload. And yes, there were some errors, but that's what happens when you try to rush things at 11:30 pm. I'm glad there was a third person who could go over them. Keivan.f^Talk 14:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty I know that in British English it is more common to omit the comma after dates like here as in "In 2020" or "In July 2020" but in this case i.e. "On 8 September 2014 it was announced that Catherine was pregnant with her second child." wouldn't it be more accurate to use comma after 2014 as its the actual date in full? Even I confirmed it. The web and dictionaries prefer my format. MSincccc (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - I don't think so, but it's so minor that I'm not overly fussed. Do as you will. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is so. I even confirmed it with chatbots and a few experts. After full dates, comma is necessary for accuracy though it is omitted after just year dates. You can do the same by putting both sentences with and without commas on the web and the chatbot prefers the comma in British English if it is a full date with day, month and year. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f, @MSincccc - a few days ago I gave the article a copyedit. Some of it was down to the MoS, some down to BrE, and some down to personal preference. I've had another look at the article, and believe that it now meets the GA criteria. Well done to you both. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Lead Optional: I'd remove the titles from the names (Queen Elizabeth II -> Elizabeth II, Prince George -> George, Princess Charlotte -> Charlotte etc) but I'll leave that to you as it's not part of the MoS and I can't withhold GA status based on that. Done In December 2014, he launched the "United for Wildlife" initiative - why is this singled out? same with "Heads Together". I'd remove these as his charity work in these areas is already summarised in he undertakes projects through The Royal Foundation, with his charity work revolving around mental health, conservation, homelessness and emergency workers. I understand Earthshot though, as that's probably his best known initiative internationally. Done I agree. The summary is sufficient. I only kept Earthshot Prize as that's his most prominent initiative. prior to his wedding to Catherine Middleton - don't need to put "Catherine" here, as you've already introduced her: "Middleton"'ll do. Done Optional - remove dates for brevity? Leads benefit from being concise and the exact timeline is specified below, so things like In October 2020, William launched the Earthshot Prize become In 2020, William launched the Earthshot Prize. Done Removed all dates, except for the date on which his father ascended to the throne, because the sentence coming after it wouldn't make sense without it. Forgot to say this in my Diana review, but it's best practice in British English to remove commas immediately after dates, so in 2020, William would be in 2020 William. Done William was made Duke of Cambridge prior to his wedding - yes, but very, very soon before (currently reads like it was weeks, months or years): add "immediately" or something to that effect. Done To make up for the content removal, you could add a sentence at the end on the last paragraph with something on his popularity or something like that, like the Queen had. Not sure, just floating an idea out there if you want to compensate for it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Honestly, I think it's at a decent length. But that's just my opinion. If you feel that it has to be longer, let me know. @Tim O'Doherty I think it would be more accurate to mention "Prince" and "Princess" before their names in lead of their parents' articles for the time being unless they receive new titles later as they receive that status by virtue of birth. Also you left the thing to our discretion as t's not part of the MoS and does not effect the GA status.
	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.	Claims needing a ref (may be more soon): William was christened in the Music Room of Buckingham Palace by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, on 4 August coinciding with the 82nd birthday of his paternal great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (this might be in the footnote's ref, but I'd copy it just to be safe). Done Introduced a new source. William gave his fianceé his mother's engagement ring Done Some refs still have locations, which are inconsistent with the others: you can do Ctrl+F and copy-paste in \|location in the box in source editing to find them all. Done Removed for online sources, but not for books. Some publications are linked and some aren't. Done All de-linked for consistency Some of the The Times sources aren't marked as paywalled. Done Some of the newspapers have ISSNs, inconsistent with the others. Done There were only two. So I just removed them. You have both The Independent and Independent UK. Done Only one instance of Independent UK being used; so went with The Independent for consistency. Is there a better source than PopSugar that can be used? Done Is there a better source than BritainsDNA that can be used? I can rephrase that sentence, but just so that you know, the chief scientist at BritainsDNA at the time was "Dr Jim Wilson, a geneticist at the University of Edinburgh" (link) New Statesman is a paywalled source. Done You have both Time and TIME (per MOS:TITLECONFORM, use Time) Done I have fixed a few sentences. They are clear and concise now. What makes Youngstown Vindicator reliable? It's a daily newspaper in Ohio. Nevertheless, the work is by Associated Press and merely printed in the paper at the time.
	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).	Inline citations are used.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Per earwig, reword the following: the coral reefs of Rodrigues in the Indian Ocean Done Diana's father and brother both attended Eton Done at Cambridge, organised by the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL) Done
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).	I've read up to Duke of Cambridge. Overall, I don't think the quality of the writing there is great. A lot of inconsistencies ("U.S." and "US" both used, "President" and "president", false titles v no false titles, some punctuation errors "Washington D.C," (which has now been fixed), etc), and I'm concerned that there's a lot of public tour info following the format of "In Octobruary 20XX William went [here]. He met [head of government] [there]. He made a speech on [this]. In Augtember the following year [...]". I'm not sure a lot of these tours had a big impact: is his brief 2015 visit to Japan warranted? What about his 2016 Canadian tour? Some are notable, such as trips which broke precedent or were places that royals hadn't visited in decades. I think it could be judiciously summarised: things like In February 2015 William visited Japan, meeting Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko at the Imperial Palace and visiting survivors devastated by the 2011 tsunami.[168] In March he visited the Chinese cities of Beijing, Shanghai, and Yunnan and met Xi Jinping. It was the first royal visit to mainland China in almost three decades, with press referring to William's diplomacy as "deft" and "polished".[169][170][171] In April 2016, William and Catherine undertook a tour to India and Bhutan.[172] could very easily become In 2015 and 2016, William embarked on various visits of Asian countries, including Japan, China, Bhutan and India; he was the first royal to visit mainland China in almost three decades, with press referring to William's diplomacy as "deft" and "polished".[169][170][171]. I'd have a close look at the flow of the prose here, Keivan and MSincccc; I'm not sure it meets the GA criteria as it stands, looking more like a trivia bucket from the dark days of Wikipedia. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] Tim O'Doherty Thanks for the feedback. I don't think it's something that cannot be fixed. It just requires a lot of trimming which I will do later today. MSincccc and others can then check the flow and see if something needs to be added or further removed. Tim O'Doherty Fixed a few typos and grammatical errors. Also made a few necessary changes. Waiting for further recommendations. Done Took care of the inconsistences. Removed the 2016 Canadian tour and some of the other ones that were trivial (they are already covered here anyway). Condensed the paragraph that covered the 2015 and 2016 visits in Asia.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yep, neutrally written.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There's been a bit of back-and-forth in the article history, but nothing to jeopardise this aspect: it doesn't change significantly from day-to-day. Tim O Doherty, it depends. At times when there is a conflict or some event is taking place such as the Coronation, an overseas visit, a new campaign, etc. one can expect multiple daily edits. Otherwise in the past year there have been instances of the page going even 25-30 days without a revision. That is expected when the page is involved in a current event. Disputes can occasionally rise as well. None of these indicate that the page is unstable. Well I've passed it now, so it doesn't really matter. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:William Submarines Crop.png - are images from the Royal Navy under OGL? Understand that images from the Ministry of Defence are, but don't know about those from the navy. @Tim O'Doherty: Here's what their website says: Pre-cleared Crown copyright images have been made available for use under the Open Government Licence (OGL). You are encouraged to use these images freely and flexibly, with only a few conditions. These images can be downloaded at high resolution. The image used in the infobox is taken from this page. I cannot tell if the image has been pre-cleared or if the Crown copyright still applies. You're welcome to take a look and if you believe it's suspicious we can change the image. No, that looks fine. Everything else looks fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Suggest adding alt text. With US president Joe Biden in Boston, December 2022 - false title, add "the" before "US". Done
	7. Overall assessment.

Source spotchecks

Numbers chosen at random. Based off of this revision of the page:

28 - Y, along with other ref
80 - N - where is "he graduated in September 2010"?
- Done New source added
81 - Y
90 - Y
120 - Y, along with the others
145 - Y, along with other ref
179 - Y
194 - Y, along with the others
213 - Y
262 - Y
292 - Y
313 - Paywall, AGF

Mostly good, just one thing needing to be resolved. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty What's that tell us? By the way if that's what you say "Mostly good, just one thing needing to be resolved." are you passing the article as GA in the next two days or so? Just asking. Regards MSincccc (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - Meaning the spotcheck. Article should be passed in the next few days too. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2023 (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.