Talk:Charles III/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Starting review

The article has been resubmitted, having been withdrawn after an inconclusive first GAN. I have explained to the nominator that I have not hitherto read the article, and I shall now do so. My usual method at GAN is to have a first brisk read-through looking for typos etc, followed by a thorough second perusal, examining the content in detail. First review to follow tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 15:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

General thoughts

Drive-by comment, I have read through the article briefly, but my main concern to the nominator is "a moving target is hard to hit". Taking a high profile BLP to GA is a worthy task - the problem is keeping it at that status when the article will be edited by many newcomers or inexperienced editors who don't know or care what the GA criteria are. So think carefully before you want to put continual effort in over many years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of what Ritchie333 says: wise words. But I'll review the existing article as requested. Tim riley talk 10:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I see your point. But, we did manage to get Elizabeth's article to GA (and later FA) during her reign. Charles's article is 30/500 protected, so we shouldn't get too many edits from naïve editors; if we do, we can just fix those without too much trouble. Charles isn't going to do anything that'll really destabilise the article; his "duties" will likely just consist of things like cheese-tasting in Yeovil and tree-planting in York; so, as far as I'm concerned, the content of the article won't suffer a massive shift for at least the next few years. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Tim O'Doherty and Tim "not O' " riley, for taking this article towards GA class. While it is true that a very popular article is often difficult to stabilize, that does not mean that popular articles should despair of reaching GA level. The most popular articles are the ones that really need to be (shown to be) of good quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ssilvers. I've been mulling over whether I've got strength enough to develop it over the next few months and try to get it to FA-class. Will need a lot of academic and biographical sources though, and less news sources. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a major undertaking, in which I would expect the FAC nominator(s) to really decide which biographies are really the most important and objective ones about Charles and have them to hand. A couple of tasks can be done more easily, though, if you have time: (1) there are a few hidden comments in the article that, I think, should be resolved. Some of them just give advice to editors, but others seem to call for a statement and citation, like the one about the queen's ring. Search for <!-- to see them. (2) The "Arms" and "Banners" sections still need slimming down and sub-articling, like the one in Elizabeth's article. (3) As I mentioned to you, I think the statement that "Within five years, the marriage was in trouble due to the couple's incompatibility and near 13-year age difference is inadequate. I think we should also list Charles's carrying the photo of Camilla in his diary, wearing the CC cufflinks and calling Diana "chubby" early on in the marriage, his jealousy of her popularity and his insensitivity regarding Diana's health. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw the thing about QETQM's ring; it was a sourced statement, and I don't know why it was pushed into the hidden comment. I agree with you about the Arms section, and that'll be on my hitlist. The thing with Diana is I don't want to make his seem like the "antagonist" of the marriage, and I say this as no huge fan of Charles: his behaviour was out of line in the 80s, fine, and I might well put something like "Charles was perceived as envious of Diana's popularity and fame" or something similar, but I'd leave out the anecdotes about the "chubby" comment and the fainting episode, as it's meant to be an overview. Like I said, if it's an issue here, it's an issue in Diana's biography too. I would also need to find it in biographies of Charles or Camilla or Diana or Elizabeth or whomever, if we want to use high quality sources. In any case, I won't be doing it for the next few months at least; I'm trying to get Tony Blair there first. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I do think a footnote would be better than nothing, and I suspect that when you do review the "high quality" sources, you will conclude that Charles was objectively the principal "antagonist" of the marriage, at least during the first five years, and if that is so, we should say so (and obviously also say so in the Diana article), though perhaps still footnoting the details. I think that in our desire to write "neutrally", we (that is, all the WP editors) may have failed to report the objective history. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand the breakdown of the marriage, and I'm not saying that Charles's behaviour was acceptable. But in real life, "antagonists" don't exist. Things aren't binary like that: if we're going to pick an antagonist though, we may as well pick somebody else (eh, Camilla?) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that I suspect that you will conclude that the weight of the "high quality sources" agree that his series of specific insensitive actions were the key initial impetus for the failure of the marriage. Maybe not, but from all I have read over the years, I suspect the objective evidence will require a stronger statement than the 50/50 impression that the current text gives. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree: "the key initial impetus", being the operative phrase, though. After that, they both began to have affairs regardless of each other. So maybe a bit more emphasis on Charles's actions during the initial stages of the marriage, but the summary should remain similar 1986-92-ish. I mean, Camillagate is the same level of bad as Squidgygate, "objectively". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

First comments

From a canter through for typos etc I have only two queries:

• The OED gives the term for a resident of Hong Kong as "Hongkonger": (one word, not two)

Putting in my oar. I think that would be unnecessarily awkward. If it appears in the article, I'd definitely say "Hong Kong resident", people from Hong Kong, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, Celia Homeford removed the speech mention from the article yesterday. So no need to worry :) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that he read his mother's statement was a rather trivial factoid. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am quite prepared to be told that "checkered" is a heraldic term, but the normal spelling in BrE (or perhaps in this context I should say "in the King's English") is "chequered".

More anon after a close perusal of the content. Tim riley talk 13:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

All done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Waiting for the results :) GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have set aside time tomorrow to do the main review. More then. Tim riley talk 18:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. Looking forward to it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Further comments

I have found very little to quibble about during my first close read-through. The points below are given for your consideration rather than as affecting the promotability of the article:

• "He was given the name Charles Philip Arthur George" – is that a name or names? Looks like the latter to me.
• "the investiture was controversial in Wales" – you might briefly explain why – it isn't self-evident.
• "But, due to a lack of public enthusiasm" – Although in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
• "After the passing-out parade " – could do with a blue link or a word of explanation
• "they were wed in St Paul's Cathedral " – "wed" is a bit twee. Every edition of Fowler from the first, in 1926, to the latest, in 2015, has advised against its use in everyday prose.
• "Charles set a precedent by being the first royal father to be present at his children's births since Prince Albert" – then surely it was Prince Albert, not Prince Charles, who set the precedent?
• "Charles was one of the first world leaders to express strong concerns about the human rights record of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu" – is it appropriate to describe Prince Charles as a world leader at the time? And we could do without the rather lumpen false title, too.
• "the memos were variously described in the press as "underwhelming" and "harmless" and that their release had "backfired " – the syntax has gone off the rails here. There are any number of ways it can be recast, but given the usual preference for active over passive it might be as well to redraw on the lines of the press variously described the memos as "underwhelming" and "harmless" and said that their release had "backfired".
• "he memorably described a proposed extension to the National Gallery in London as a "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend"" – "memorably" is perfectly true, but is decidedly editorialising
• "but, takes a break for tea at 5:00 p.m. " – is the comma wanted?
• "Charles is a supporter of Burnley F.C." – How surprising! Do we know why? I recall in the Prince's (and my) youth Burnley were a major team at the highest level, but even so, the town of Burnley has no obvious special connexion to Charles.
• "Aside from hunting, " – In BrE "apart from" is more usual than "aside from", which is more AmE.
• "Charles has been involved in performance since he was a member of Dryden Society" – I seem to recall that he was seen onstage before that, playing the Pirate King in The Pirates of Penzance while still at school.
• "Charles inherited from his mother, Elizabeth II, " – you've already told us who his mother was.
• "Banners, flags and standards" – to my mind this section goes on more than somewhat, telling us a great deal more than we need to know, or want to wade through, about vexillological arrangements that are now obsolete.

Over to you. Tim riley talk 16:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

All admirable except that you have mistaken my meaning about the false title for Ceaușescu: it isn't the description to which I object (who could?) but the phrasing. A false title, inappropriate in formal BrE, is when you refer to "composer John Smith" instead of to "the composer John Smith". This usage, familiar from tabloid newspapers, is technically known as an anarthrous occupational nominal premodifier; it is not suitable for an encylopaedia article written in the King's English. It can easily be remedied by the insertion of a definite article. Tim riley talk 18:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Will be done in the next 30 or so seconds. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley Right, most are done. I elected not to change it to "names", just because I think it sounds a bit strange. I added a quick bit of context for the PoW title controversy from the reference; tweaked the wording of the governor-general proposal bit; wikilinked "passing-out parade"; "wed in" has now been changed to "the wedding took place in"; the royal father precedent sentence has been removed; "world leader" is now "prominent individual" (that sounds a bit odd too, so if anybody reading wants to change that, go ahead), but I've retained "Romanian dictator", as that's how he's described in his own article; the black spider memos bit's been cleaned up; removed "memorably"; comma is gone, as is the semicolon; kept the bit about Burnley; changed to "since his youth"; "Elizabeth II" has vanished; the banners section I'll look at a bit more carefully, rather than including it in this package of edits. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all of Tim's preferences and suggestions above. Re: the Banners, flags and standards section, I note that the Elizabeth II article has a section called "Titles, styles, honours, and arms", which summarizes this sort of stuff and then relies on a link to a sub-article, and I think something like that would be better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

All looking good. I shall have another read-through tomorrow, with a particular eye on the referencing and then, I hope, we can proceed to the ribbon-cutting. Tim riley talk 19:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

References

• The sources are extensive and on the whole self-evidently authoritative. There are a few that are not obviously reliable sources, and I should like to be certain that they meet WP's standards in that respect. What makes each of these a reliable source? –

• 9Honey
• David Colquhoun's two cited blogs
• Female First
• londonlovesbusiness.com
• Modern TV
• Planned Seniorhood
• secularism.org.uk
• The Morton Report

• There is one thing about your referencing that mystifies me: why do you put the bibliographic details of some books (sometimes incompletely, e.g. Bower and Singh/Ernst, or without page numbers, e.g. Paget) in the References section and others in the Sources section? This mishmash is arguably just about passable for GAN but would certainly fail a source review at FAC.
• ISBNs: it is customary to give them in the full hyphenated form: this site is a simple way of getting them.
• I cannot see why some references (e.g. 77, 202 and 203) include whacking great quotes but other citations confine themselves to the customary Author (date), p. number form.
• When citing the BBC you sometimes call it just "BBC" and at other times "BBC News". Is this intentional? Ditto for "ABC News" and "Australian Broadcasting Corporation".
• The Independent: You should distinguish between the London paper of that name and the Milton Keynes Independent MK
• You translate "Prinţul Charles, fermier de Fălticeni" but not "Princ Čarls u manastiru Kovilj".
• Ref 34 needs tidying: the first citation runs into the second, it appears.
• Is there a distinction between The Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph? We have citations to both.
• Why does ref 108 give an ISSN number for the Telegraph when other references to it don't?
• Ditto for ref 168 for The Guardian when other citations to it have no ISSN.
• Mountbatten-Windsor, Charles (1989) seems a somewhat perverse way of citing the author, given that you say in the text that he doesn't really use a surname. I suggest "Wales, Prince of" or some such would be less awkward.
• Ref 124 has a half sentence tacked on to the end that seems to have no relation to the rest of the citation.
• Ref 257 has an upright divider character that seems superfluous.
• Ref 269 is wholly inadequate: no page number and no bibliographical details.

Over to you. Tim riley talk 11:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, on it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley I've split ref 34 into two, so that should be fine. The long quote from 77 is gone. I'll work on moving the bibliographical information from the refs to the sources in my sandbox (I did similar on Tony Blair's article) later, as it's a lot more complex; it could take a while, but if you're happy to pass the article, I'll do it fairly soon. The divider on 257 is gone. I don't have the book ref 269 cites, and I can't find it on the Internet Archive. This isn't great, so if someone else can find it digitised somewhere, they can change it. Refs 108 and 169 have been stripped of their ISSNs. The "Mountbatten-Windsor" bit: the article says "As the reigning monarch, Charles does not usually use a family name, but when one is needed, it is Mountbatten-Windsor". I've elected not to change it, but I won't protest if someone does change it to "Wales, Prince of" (or even just "Charles III": the person wrote it, not the title, but then it introduces an anachronism, so I'm unsure there). 124's half-sentence has gone too. I'll try to untangle the "ABC News" vs "Australian Broadcasting Corporation", "BBC" vs "BBC News", "The Telegraph" vs "The Daily Telegraph" and "Independent MK" vs "The Independent" in a bit, as well as translating the Bosnian and tackling the ISBNs. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the ref to The Morton Report; the other reference does fine on its own. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"National Secular Society" as a source does seem to have some integrity. David Colquhoun seems to know his stuff, so he's probably safe too. I can't find where the Modern TV and Female First refs are, so perhaps you could point them out. I've converted the ISBNs, and I'll get around to fixing up the disparity between BBC and BBC News, etc. soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Female First: ref 84. Modern TV: ref 231. Tim riley talk 18:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley - The "mishmash" of sources and refs has now been disentangled. The "Female First" ref is gone, the "Modern TV" one doesn't look too egregious, reliability-wise, as it's just reporting on a BBC2 documentary. I've converted most of the remaining book references to the "efn" format, and the inconsistency with the names of the news sources has been resolved. The rest of the things you pointed out, like the long quotations, the ISSNs and the 257 divider have been removed, and the Bosnian title has been translated, 34 has been tidied, and the ISBNs are now all consistently formatted. Over to you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor: I replaced this ref with a Bloomberg article that comments on the book and places it in context. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Highgrove reference to £336,000, see: this and this. Perhaps you can replace the incomplete book ref? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Re ABC/ABC News, note that there is also a prominent American Broadcasting Company (ABC) that this may refer to in some cases. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We progress. I shall be away all day tomorrow, and will look in here again on Sunday to see how we are getting on. I had better put the review formally on hold, in the circs. Tim riley talk 18:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I've fixed all the refs now, so we should be good to go. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:REPEATLINK, I don't think you should blue-link BBC News,Telegraph, etc. every time, just the first time they are seen in the Lead, the first time they are seen in the text above, and the first time they are seen in the refs, right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought about that. I linked "The Independent (UK)" every time per Tim's suggestion, that we should differentiate between the two similarly names papers. Same with BBC News vs BBC; however, I've removed them now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I left in the (UK) to differentiate, but removed the bluelinks after the first two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Right. I'm re-working the references, trying to hew out the book info from them and then moving it down into sources, and using the "[Surname], [First name] [Year], p. [No.]" ref format. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you need first name except for the two Browns. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, I wasn't thinking. I meant "[Surname] [Year], p. [No.]" Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As they'd say on Downton Abbey: Golly! One must admire, chaps, the commitment and attention to detail you've shown here, equalled only by the degree of pomp 'n' pageantry afforded the newly coronated couple themselves. Given their druthers, no doubt C. & C. would've preferred to live their incomprehensible privileged lives considerably less ornately and conspicuously (my overuse of adjectives provided as a bonus metaphor for said requisite historical ostentation)—so the least we can do is to represent them here fairly, accurately, and well-grammardly (ack! LOL). Well done; we're lucky to have you. I'll hang up now and enjoy the rest of the programme as it airs. – AndyFielding (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm grinning like an idiot reading this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks—tho I get the feeling I should've added it to the "Final read-through" section instead. Sorry if I failed to follow protocol, esp. any Royal-related. [blush] – AndyFielding (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Final read-through

All looking good, at first glance. I shall have a final (I hope) perusal of the article tomorrow and report back here. Tim riley talk 18:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: