Talk:Queen Camilla/GA1

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: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 09:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Camilla Rosemary Shand was born on 17 July 1947 at King's College Hospital, London. I had prefer this sentence as it is in line with that of other royals under the first line of the "Early life and education" section.  Done Also I had recommend changing "Shand" in the same section to "Camilla" but I had leave it at your discretion (you might not if you don't want to). Further avoid repetition of her first name multiple times under the same sections. I would keep it as it is. The parts that cover her pre-marriage era use the surname Shand, while the parts covering the period after her first marriage and until her second marriage to Charles use the surname Parker Bowles. This is normal as she was known to the wider public as Miss Shand and subsequently Mrs Parker Bowles during those years (also in line with the articles on Catherine, Meghan, Sarah, and Sophie). Reduced the number of times her name is mentioned without causing any ambiguity. Others, including the reviewer, are also welcome to chime in and give a try as well. Camilla carries out public engagements on behalf of the British monarch. See if you can fix this line in lead  Done User:Векочел has already altered it. I suggest you to go through just the beginnings of each line except the lead and "Early life and education" section. Her first name "Shand" or "Camilla" as the case may be. There is evidence of unnecessary repetition which is not required. There is evidence of unnecessary repetition which is not required. Be specific please. I don't see that much repetition, and having the word "she" repeated ten times in a paragraph is not desirable either IMO. On the other hand, a reviewer is welcome to make occasional edits as well, so if you think there is something you can adjust don't hesitate. First marriage Fix this heading if possible. What is wrong with it exactly? Given that there is also a "Second marriage"? She has been married twice, like Wallis Simpson and Meghan Markle Could you please provide a suitable alternative to this: Camilla carries out public engagements representing the monarchy, often alongside Charles. She is also the patron, the president, or a member of numerous charities and organisations. I gave it a try but if you want it changed again you have to be more specific with the issue you want addressed. Prose is fine and accurate. Relevant to the topic as such.
	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.	Contains a list of all references.
	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).	Just make sure that all the sources are properly cited. Such as "cite news-work" for BBC News and "cite magazine-magazine" for magazines. It’s impossible to go through each and every citation though they are all fine and reliable. Rest fine and good to go once this is taken care of. Already done. In fact I did some initial formatting about a month ago and finished it off yesterday. I'll have another look today, just to be on the safe side. Did you get it checked Keivan? If yes we are good to go and I had pass this criteria once I receive your report on this.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig is fine: 32 per cent at the highest, flagging the description of the coat of arms (which can't be paraphrased). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It does address the main aspects of the topic. From her early life to her first marriage and then her interests as well as her eventual second marriage to the now Charles III.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	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.
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.	Went through all the image licences. Most of them look fine though I require you all to go through the images licensed under "Public domain" and find whether they are usable or not. Also please see whether the signature's presence is valid as signatures of other royals were nominated for deletion previously given the UK laws. Rest good to go. Well, it is really the reviewer's job to go through every single image and list out the suspicious ones (that's what reviewing means), but it appears that the burden is one me somehow so here we go. The signature is fine. Signatures are in public domain in the US, but not in the UK which means that they cannot be hosted on the Commons. The Commons and Wikipedia are two different things. The infobox image is published by the Government of New Zealand (here's their terms and conditions which states their material is licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence.). The image of Bolehyde Manor is also available for reuse The image from Brazil is also fine based on their terms and conditions The image from the Diamond Jubilee was published on Flickr with the right license. The one with them and the Bushes is the work of the US government and is in public domain. The one showing her at the Welsh Parliament was published by their account on Flickr under the right license. The one from CHOGM 2022 was published by Number 10 on Flicker under the right license. The one showing her on the balcony was published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on Flickr and is in public domain. The one showing her at the Big Lunch was published by their account on Flickr under the right license. This one is the work of NIH (or US government); again, public domain. These two (1, 2) are personal uploads. I wasn't able to locate them anywhere else across the web and the uploaders haven't had a terrible history on the Commons so I assume they are fine. Given you say and I see no problem with the images used, I am passing this aspect.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fixed a few captions and the rest are fine and good to go.
	7. Overall assessment.

Prose and summary style

The GA reviewer has asked me to take a look at the 1a and 3b aspects. From a quick buzz through the article I'd say the summary style used is actually quite good, with not as much detail as some of the other articles. As for prose, as usual I recommend removing commas after dates when not a parenthetical clause; merging some short paragraphs; and fixing false titles and complying with MOS:JOB (example: "First Lady of Ukraine Olena Zelenska" would become "the first lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelenska"). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's always good to have a second pair of eyes going through everything. I will go through the article myself later today and apply these suggestions. Will update you guys once it's done. Keivan.f^Talk 19:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty I have verified the date styles in British English. Its like "In November 2023,... or "In November 2023 ..." both will do but in a case like "On 3 April 2019," the comma is significant and needs to be used. "In 2020" is not usually succeeded by a comma. I hope I have made myself clear. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not British so I don't know if it's just a matter of preference or something that needs to be strictly followed. This article says for British English no commas should be used; ex. On 13 May 2007 Daniel was born is correct but On 13 May, 2007, Daniel was born is incorrect. The Oxford Style Guide did not contain any info on how to use dates and commas together, only clarifying that it should be 13 April instead of April 13 in British English. I will leave this part for later and instead focus on the other suggestions for the time being. Keivan.f^Talk 07:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f This is what I meant:

On 13 May 2007, Daniel was born- Most accurate

In May 2007, Daniel was born or In May 2007 Daniel was born-Both are equally correct.

In 2007 Daniel was born- Most accurate.

I am fine with the writing styles on other articles. Just ensuring through this whether this is the way things are written in Camilla's article. After all, we need consistency in the article. By the way, I use Oxford style English in my school and textbooks. So I know after verifying with the teachers.

MSincccc (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2024 (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.