Talk:Prince George of Wales

RfC on Charles III

There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This article as a GA

I've addressed the rest of the suggestions made in the 2021 GA review. We should now be good to go for a second GAR. I recognise that I am not a major contributor to this article per WP:GANI: "If you are not a significant contributor to the article, you must secure the consent of the significant contributors before nominating". I'd like to nominate the article soon, so pinging the top five contributors: @Ardenter: @Iamthecheese44: @Llewee: @Surtsicna: @Keivan.f:, what do you all think? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response but I really did not have time to actually read the article and only managed to do it now. I think it's good to go, considering that the article's subject is a child. However, as he grows up some of his "official appearances" might become trivial in the long run and should be taken out. But for now I think it's good. Of course there is going to be a second GAR and the reviewer might ask for bits and pieces to be omitted but we'll see. Keivan.f^Talk 23:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Might take out some bits and pieces, but as you say, it's the reviewer's decision. I'll wait for one or two more to give their blessing(s) before nomination. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I am of a slightly different opinion regarding the official appearances: that which will be trivial in the future is extraneous already. That is because notability is not temporary; there is nothing in the article that is good now that will ever expire. I must say that much of the Prince George of Wales#Official appearances looks like fluff to me: applauding in a video, being enthusiastic about a football game, accompanying his parents to a church service, standing on a balcony, attending a party, again standing on a balcony, and so on. I do not see why that belongs in an encyclopedic biography. Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna I've removed some of the "fluffier" appearances. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: I know that I was not one of the users that you pinged. In addition, I do not have significant experience editing Prince George's Wikipedia article. However, as a fan of his father and a fanatic of royalty, I am deeply interested in the content of this article. Moreover, given that you requested an additional commentator and that I would like to someday say that I made the King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms's Wikipedia article a GA, I want to offer my own comments.

In general, I am satisfied with the organization of George's article. I would also offer the following constructive criticism from the perspective of an American (i.e. non-member of the Commonwealth of Nations) whose fellow citizens may not know much about royalty:

• I notice that it is mentioned three different times at the top of the page that George was born at St. Mary's Hospital. This seems very excessive. Perhaps we could remove the mention from the lede, given that part should be just a summary of the entire article?
• Perhaps this is because I have never grown up in a monarchy. However, even knowing the cultural significance of George's possible future as a king, I am discomforted by the fact that his birth is an entire section. Mathematically speaking, 20% of this article's five core sections are devoted to an event that encompassed only approximately 10% of George's life. Unless there are reliable sources that would justify such a ratio, could we please remove some details from the Birth section, namely the information about the speculation on the British economy?
• The Birth section also does not make it clear (in my opinion) why the 21-gun salute and ringing of the Westminster Abbey bells, among other details, are significant in the context of George's birth. This may be apparent to the average Brit or Canadian, but not to an American, even one (like myself) that likes royalty.
• For the Upbringing section, I notice that there are no pictures. Do any free-use images exist in particular from George's christening? This would increase the visual appeal of the section in general.
• Also, in the Upbringing section, is it really necessary to include the information on George's godparents? As a royal fanatic, information like this comes across as quite trivial and may not appeal to a general audience (especially from cultures without monarchies or where godparents do not exist). At the very least, could these names be condensed into a footnote?
• I agree with Keivan and Surtsicna that the Official appearances section needs to be rewritten, especially if we hope to make George's article a FA like those of all his possible sovereign predecessors since 1707 (sans his grandfather). Namely:
  • How encyclopedic is it to mention that the Australian media called George a "republican slayer"? Although I identify as a (constitutional) monarchist, this article is not the place to advocate for such sentiments, which I believe this phrasing does, wittingly or not. In addition, to my knowledge, republicanism is a contentious issue in Australia. To avoid alienating an entire group of George's possible future subjects, we should eliminate the sentences in question altogether.
  • Likewise, is it necessary to mention that Barack Obama joked about George's bathrobe during their visit? While this quote may pique reader interest, I believe it gives undue weight to an event that did not directly pertain to George himself. Could we also please remove or condense this information?
  • Above all, this section takes the time to explain that George attended a UEFA match and asked David Attenborough a question, but nothing is mentioned about his great-grandfather's funeral, his great-grandmother's funeral, or his grandfather and step-grandmother's coronation. This prioritizing of information does not sit right at all with me, especially for an article on a well-known House of Windsor royal that we are striving to make GA status. Did George attend the latter three events? If so, what role did he play? (Spoiler alert: He did attend all events and had a role in Charles's coronation). The article does not answer these questions and will leave some readers who know about Philip's death, Elizabeth's death, and Charles/Camilla's coronation wondering.
• For the Public image section, some information also comes across as excessively detailed/trivial and unrelated to the subject matter. I do not object to the media portrayals of George being described. However, I fail to see how a generic reader, especially from outside of the Commonwealth, will gain a greater appreciation of the prince by knowing that a dressing gown he wore or type of lentils that he ate saw increased sales because of him. In addition, how uniquely notable is it that ISIS threatened George's school? (I ask because ISIS has committed many acts of terrorism, and as far as I know, his father William faced similar threats from the Irish Republican Army as a child, but I wouldn't feel obliged to mention this on William's Wikipedia page.) I recommend that the latter information be condensed or removed altogether.
• In comparison to the section in Elizabeth II's article and the Prince of Wales's article, the section on George's titles and styles is very short. When did George specifically start to be called "Prince George of Wales" as opposed to "Prince George of Cambridge"? Does George have a coat of arms? What honors (American English disclaimer) does George hold? I understand that George is still a child and will gain more of these distinctions later in life. However, if we can disclose all of this information on Wikipedia when it comes to his great-grandmother and father, I see no reason why we cannot do the same for him.
  • I recognize that this comment is not unique to George's article, and I would be happy to raise this issue with WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. However, I believe there needs to be some footnote explaining why Wikipedia refers to George as "Prince George of Wales" as opposed to "Prince George of the United Kingdom" or even "Prince George of England (or Great Britain)". Even with my personal background and interest in royalty, it took months for me to realize that substantive titles do not necessarily have to be the name of the country of origin of the royal in question. I understand that this knowledge may be intuitive to a person such as a Brit, Dane, or Swede. However, an average American, for example, who never grew up in a world of noble and royal titles will be completely perplexed by names like that of George's Wikipedia article.
• In general, I worry that ancestry sections on Wikipedia are too trivial for an average reader. However, in the case of George's article, I believe that some discussion of his descendants is appropriate. Namely, I would mention George's biological connections to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Windsor, the Middleton family (via Catherine), and the Spencer family (via his grandmother Diana) (As a final thought, it is surprising that a Wikipedia reader will make it through George's article without learning that he is the eldest grandchild of the well-known People's Princess!)

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments. I would also be happy to formally review Prince George's Wikipedia article for GA status and offer even more feedback should you still intend to submit this page for a nomination. Hurricane Andrew (444) 02:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT Thanks for this. I'll make the edits a bit later, but wanted to acknowledge that I'd seen your message. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT: Alright, I've done some work. I'll go through your suggestions and explain why I've done some things the way I did, or why I elected not to:

• I've kept the "born at born at St Mary's Hospital" bit, as Elizabeth II, William, Prince of Wales, Charles III, and Anne, Princess Royal all have where they were born in the lead.
• When George grows up, we can trim the birth section. However, given that he is nine years old ATTOW, and his birth is probably the biggest event of his life so far, I do think that it is justified.
• I think the ringing of the bells, the 21-gun salutes etc., are significant enough to be included. For example, Anne's "Early life" section also mentions this type of celebration.
• Can't find any images of the christening on Commons, but feel free to add an image from here if you'd like to illustrate the article further.
• Removed the godparents.
• I've trimmed some of the engagements. I dislike overly lengthy "Official duties" as much as the next guy, but I think it's concise enough now.
  • The "republican slayer" comment, I think, is also justified, although I won't protest too strongly if it's removed.
  • Ditto, but replace "'republican slayer'" with "Obama joke".
  • I'm on the fence about including mentioning Philip's funeral, but I will add a bit about Elizabeth's, as you are correct in that it should be in there somewhere. There is a sentence at the end of the section about the King and the Queen's coronation, and George's role in it.
• I've removed the bit about ISIS per your rationale.
• George doesn't currently have a coat of arms, and probably won't for another nine or ten years. Like you say, "George is still a child and will gain more of these distinctions later in life".
• I might add an ancestry box (ahnentafel) similar to that of William and Charles, but only if Charlotte and Louis got one too, for consistency.

Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Ahnentafeln have been subject to much discussion and I do not think they add any value, nor is that format commonly seen in published biographies. If there are any ancestors that deserve to be mentioned, they can and should be mentioned in prose. I think they all are. I also think that George's styles are sufficiently covered; we should not be mentioning any dates because providing sources that directly verify the dates is nearly impossible and certainly not worth the effort. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I do agree. He has not been granted a peerage so the inclusion of dates for a single change in his style seems to be unnecessary, at least at the moment. Regarding the ancestry, well, I would not personally support adding an huge ancestry chart if that's what's being proposed, unless it can be properly referenced and accompanied by prose. In the event of adding a chart it should also be limited to three generations. I guess nobody wants an expanded list of individuals that the subject himself has not even met. Keivan.f^Talk 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of the replies and edits. I appreciate your time, and the article looks much better from my perspective.

With respect to my comments on George's ancestry, I was looking to include an ahnentafel template that I have seen on many other Wikipedia articles on royals. However, I will settle for a prose paragraph that explains George's most recent descendants. My last comment is that Diana, another famous ancestor of George, was still not mentioned in this article. I have added a sentence myself in the birth section of George's article to describe this biological connection. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not think we need to mention either Diana or the Middletons. None of them are much discussed in relation to George. The thing about being born royal is that you tend to have many famous ancestors anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have given the article a generous trim. The idea was to write in general terms (George attends events and accompanies his parents on tours) rather than listing every single thing he has done in public. I have also reorganized the section in a chronological order so that the article conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. Doing so I have merged the Official appearances section into Upbringing, ridding the article of a section that inevitably turns an encyclopedic biography into a royal engagement diary.
I am also looking for sources that discuss George's role in events in a more general manner. There was once a time when I diligently kept the article free of sources such as Vanity Fair, as I believe this article can and should do better; I would appreciate help with replacing the ones that have crept in with the likes of BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:GANI, given that I have been a significant contributor to the pages of both of George's parents, their charities as well as his siblings for more than a year now I can say that this page has been successfully trimmed down though still changes can be made. I have also made a few corrections to user Surtsicna's edits which I can say are all fine. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the grammar to perfection, MSincccc. That is a major contribution! Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

A bit too generous in some places, I think. I agree that we don't need a blow-by-blow account of every engagement George has ever been on; however, we should keep a few examples, and the "Public image" section was fine as was. I also thought that the close-up image of George as a newborn was better, and that the sections were better left un-re-organised. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As you can see I have put the previous picture back just as it was though I have replaced the caption because I find this caption more accurate and relevant. I hope @Tim O'Doherty you are now satisfied. I will continue to rearrange other things I find which were as good as it was. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Tim O'Doherty@Keivan.f@Surtsicna, I just wanted to say something regarding Prince Louis' page here because it's regarding the same issue. To not mention any of his official appearances like for his siblings will not be good as far the accuracy and relevancy of his page is concerned. I suggest that we should add atleast some of his public appearances like his first Trooping the Colour, Coronation and Easter Sunday appearance. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

A baby

The baby that captured the world's attention

The baby of two very famous people

I agree that a few examples are good to have, but I thought that was covered by the mention of his appearances in the royal tours of Australia and New Zealand; meeting the Obamas; his first Trooping the Colour parade; the Platinum Jubilee celebration; and the coronation. Do these not suffice?
I am quite disappointed that you both like the close crop-up better. To me it seems to be of little value, since it shows a newborn baby, that looks exactly like millions of newborn babies born every year, in the arms of someone. The whole photograph, on the other hand, illustrates the media attention that the section is talking about, and even non-fans can tell from that photo that the baby is a prince. Surtsicna (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hwllo @Surtsicna, don't be disappointed. But the basis for adding the close up picture here is to draw other page viewers to spit the baby more than others as can be seen in your preferred picture. Also the page is about the young Prince hence it will only be appropriate that the close up picture is used here. I hope you understand and comply with this close up picture. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is that nobody can tell the subject is a young prince without some background context. At the very least we could show his parents with him. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Surtsicna on this one. The cropped version was used in the infobox ten years ago, because, well, that's how he looked like back then. For the article's body, however, I suggest using the uncropped version because it captures the essence of the event, which involved his parents, the press, etc. not just a baby wrapped in a shawl. Keivan.f^Talk 12:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

But @Keivan.f, the closeup picture is more relevant because the spotlight is on the baby and the picture has been used to highlight George coming out of St. Mary's Hospital in his mother's arms for his first ever public photo. So it would only be better that the present one stays as it is. The picture preferred by and previously used by user @Surtsicna did not highlight George (he is hardly visible) which isore important for accuracy. MSincccc (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not see the point in highlighting George when nobody can tell it's George. In the zoomed-in picture he looks exactly like hundreds of thousands of other babies born every day. People can tell it's George from the picture that shows his parents and the media. Therefore the picture with more context is more informative. Surtsicna (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

But @Surtsicna everyone can notice his mother's arms in which he is being carried and hence make out that it is Prince George. The picture is henceforth better suited. Please understand. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you telling me that people can recognize Catherine by her arms? In this photo? Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, especially if they are not familiar with royals other than the King and Queen. But the picture used by you was far fetched. The spotlight is far from being on the newborn. Also that picture also features the heads of cameramen and media executives blocking a clear view of Prince George back then. But the picture can only belong to George and no outsider will doubt it (you previously said that "In the zoomed-in picture he looks exactly like hundreds of thousands of other babies born every day") for the following reasons: 1)It is Prince George 's Wikipedia page.2) The Commons filed used has been legally verified and captioned as been that of newborn George. 3) The caption used for the image clearly states that it is of "Prince George" ,then a newborn, leaving the hospital in the arms of his mother. 4) If people trying to reaffirm whether the photo really belongs to newborn George search it on the web, it will end their doubts because the one used here was George's first picture published by the media. (When he was being taken to his home for the first time) . I don't think anything more needs to be specified now that I have made my discussion clear @Surtsicna@Keivan.f@Tim O'Doherty. Thank you . MSincccc (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not doubting that it is Prince George in the photo. I am doubting the value of the image. It does not add value because it does not tell a story. A photo with more context makes it clear that the baby is the most famous prince in the world. It illustrates the text of the paragraph, in which we describe the media interest in him. It is sad to miss the opportunity to show that. Surtsicna (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Here I am talking about Prince Louis' page @Keivan.f@Surtsicna@Tim O'Doherty as well. Would it not be nicer and more accurate as far information is concerned to talk about Louis'first Trooping the Colour, Coronation and Easter Sunday appearance on his page. @Surtsicna I found that you removed his entire "Official appearances" section for the sake of trimming. As @Tim O'Dohertysaid above, "however, we should keep a few examples, and the "Public image" section was fine as was". This applies to Prince Louis'page as well. MSincccc (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added some examples of Louis's appearances.[1] Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Titles and styles, again

I notice George is referred to here as Prince George of Wales. Where does this come from? Does someone somewhere along the line think that is his surname? Georgie is a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so "of Wales" is a bit superfluous. Anyway, SFAIK this territorial appellation/style is German, not British (Manfred von Richtofen, Alexander of Hesse: Rupert of Hentzau?); it hasn’t been used in England since the Middle Ages, and even then referred to a place of birth rather than a lordship (Edward of Woodstock, Henry of Monmouth). Also, unlike most of his princely rellies ,he doesn’t have peerage, yet, so he is simply Prince George (of the UK of GB and NI). Even then, his dad wasn’t Prince William of Cambridge, and his uncle isn’t Prince Harry of Sussex ( he’s Prince Henry (of GB and NI), (and) Duke of Sussex; two different/separate titles.

I note that the source (Harpers Bazaar?) doesn't say it's his official style, it simply says he is "now known as Prince George of Wales" and his new name at school "will be George Wales" ie. a name of convenience. When his dad was in the Army he was "Lieutenant Wales"—a name based on his father's title Prince of Wales—(presumably because Lieutenant Mountbatten-Windsor is a bit of a n mouthful to shout over the noise of a helicopter) but again, that was a name of convenience, not an official style. Where does this stuff come from? Swanny18 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

William was never "Prince William of Cambridge"; he too, was "Prince William of Wales" before his marriage, as his father, Charles, was the Prince of Wales. William became "Duke of Cambridge" on his wedding day. As for this article using "Prince George of Wales", it's nothing informal or made-up: Britannica uses it too. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying: So, is this an official style or is it his common name? Swanny18 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly bet on it being his official style, but I can't be sure: @Keivan.f:, @Surtsicna: @MSincccc: I don't know if you'd be able to find any good, solid sources for this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between peerage and princely style. Prince Richard is currently "The Duke of Gloucester". Before getting the peerage, he was simply "Prince Richard of Gloucester" as the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (see this entry from The London Gazette). Similarly, Prince Michael of Kent is known by this name and style because he's the son of the late Prince George, Duke of Kent and has not been given a peerage. Concerning George, his official style at the moment is "His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales" per 1, 2, and 3 as he's the son of "The Prince of Wales". He could become "The Prince George" if his father accedes to the throne (though usually as the eldest son he would become "The Duke of Cornwall" automatically). The current title is both accurate and common and a great way to disambiguate him from the zillions of other princes named George. Keivan.f^Talk 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ahh! That makes sense; I had forgotten about Pr Michael (and Pr Richard) and their styles. And I reckon the Household website is a good solid source (I didn’t know if we were just taking some journalists word for it). Thanks for that... Swanny18 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is his Coat of Arms still missing as of 2024, during the reign of Charles III? Neither are Their Royal Highnesses Princess Charlotte's, Prince Louis', Prince Archie's and Princess Lilibet's. --170.64.206.141 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

They don't have one. DrKay (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay is right. The practice is to only grant them their own versions when they turn 18. See this article from the College of Arms. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Update

Please change his age to ten GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The "birth date and age" template in the infobox automatically updates the age without any user interference. No editing needed about that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok thankyou GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

History of the prince's styles

I recently added a list of the prince's styles history. It looked like the following. (I don't know how to do bullet points on this part of Wikipedia, so imagine one behind every line)

22 July 2013 — 8 September 2022: His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge

8 September 2022 — 9 September 2022: His Royal Highness Prince George of Cornwall

9 September 2022 — present: His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales

It said it was removed because there is no source for the second title. The matter of the fact is, a prince or princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland without a peerage in their own right uses "of [father's or late father's highest peerage title]". Hence, that is why he was styled "of Cambridge" during the roughly day and a half before his father was appointed Prince of Wales

Example. Despite being 81, Prince Michael of Kent was never given a peerage. He uses "of Kent" as it was his late father's highest title.

Another example. In the rare decision that either James, Earl of Wessex or Lady Louise Windsor decide to use the title of Prince or Princess, he or she would be styled "Prince James of Edinburgh" or "Princess Louise of Edinburgh".

The only exception to this is a prince or princess without a peerage who is child of the monarch. They are styled "The Prince/Princess [name]". An example of this is the late Elizabeth II's younger children excluding the now King Charles III. This is because the heir apparent is always Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay as you should know.

So, this is something that is just customary. StrawWord298944 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge, based on the precedence set by George V's children during the time between his grandmother's death and when his father finally named him Prince of Wales, but I think there is no direct source for this because it was less than 24 hours that William's children held this title and there was never any decree from the BRF that used this title, just assumption that this was their title for a edw hours before it was announced that William was Prince of Wales anyway and it didn't matter. Piratesswoop (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prince George of Wales/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MSincccc (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AndrewPeterT (talk · contribs) 04:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening comments

Please note that it is bedtime where I reside, and I will leave detailed comments as soon as I can tomorrow (March 27).

In the interest of full disclosure, I have left detailed feedback to improve content on the article's talk page on one occasion (but have not been involved with this article otherwise). If this counts as a "significant contribution" per WP:GAN/I#R2, please let me know and I will recuse immediately.

For now, I will end with this remark: Wow. In my 10 years on Wikipedia and being personally interested in the House of Windsor, I never would have guessed that one day, I would be scrutinizing the article on a future British king for its GA merits! And as a registered user, there was no way I was going to pass this opportunity to be part of Wikipedia, if not worldwide, history!

However, if permitted, I will definitely commit to objectively reviewing Prince George's article against the six criteria. Because I know that many people are going to consult his article in the years to come, I genuinely want to make my contribution here as productive as possible. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT All I hope for is that it is passed as GA as soon as possible in an accurate manner. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Both: a bit of discussion on the talk page does not constitute "significant" editing per the GAN criteria, i.e. this is a drive-by nomination. It can either be quick-failed or you can simply CSD this page so that it is deleted, and remove the nomination from the talk page, it doesn't matter much. For the record, it appears that MSincccc has recently conducted multiple drive-by nominations; I've pointed out the policy to him on his talk page re another article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I am the fifth largest author and also made 68 edits, the 7th-most to the article. I know that the Sherlock Holmes one could have been considered a drive-by but obviously not this one @Chiswick Chap. Editors @Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty will tell you more. I do satisfy all the criteria as I am among the top five authors. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT I hope to receive comments from you soon. I have admitted to a drive-by nomination for the article Sherlock Holmes given my authorship of that article was largely due to running of a bot. However, I have significantly contributed to George's article and am presently one of the top 10 editors as well as one of the top five authors to the page. Further, I have also consulted other editors on the issue. I hope you understand. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT The drive-by charges were in relation to my GA nomination for Sherlock Holmes not this article. Hence please go forward with this review. I have spoken to the others in this concern. Looking forward to your comments. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 11:48, 28 March 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.

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prince George of Wales/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 09:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Prose:

• "Charles III" but "Queen Elizabeth II" - pick one

 Done

• "then known as Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" - they weren't just known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, they were the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge: just "then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is fine.

 Done

• "Prince George was born on 22 July 2013 in St Mary's Hospital, London, at 16:24 BST, during the reign of his paternal great-grandmother Elizabeth II, as the first child of Prince William and Catherine, then known as Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" - this sentence traipses on a bit too much: "Prince George was born at 16:24 BST on 22 July 2013 in St Mary's Hospital, London, during the reign of his paternal great-grandmother Elizabeth II. He was the first child of Prince William and Catherine, then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. His birth was announced by press release..."

 Done

• "new-born" - "newborn"

 Done

• "Celebrations were staged for his birth" - "for his birth" is strange, could probably get rid: "Celebrations were staged".

 Done

• "by Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury" -> "by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby"

 Done

• "his family relocated to Kensington Palace in 2014" - when in 2014? If it's in the latter portion of the year it isn't really in George's "first months".

It's said that George spent his first months at Bodorgan Castle before moving to Kensington Palace sometime in 2014.

• "Then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott" -> "The then-

Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott"  Done

• You can merge paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Upbringing

 Done

• "George took part in his great-grandmother Queen Elizabeth II" - you've told us who his great-grandmother is.

 Done

• "was succeeded by George's grandfather as King Charles III" - strange phrasing: "was succeeded by George's grandfather, who took on the regnal name Charles III" would be longer, but neater.

 Done

• "George served as a page of honour" - "He" is all that's needed, and breaks up four successive sentences beginning with "George".

 Done

• "In the British satirical sketch programme Newzoids, George was" - this comma can be removed.

 Done

• "of both Queen Elizabeth II" - "Elizabeth" is fine, you don't need the full title.

 Done

• "cameo appearance from Prince George" - "George" will do.
• "(voiced by showrunner Gary Janetti)" - this can be removed: we haven't got who voiced him in Newzoids and people can click the link if they want to see the cast.

 Done

• "life difficult both for his family and for the British monarchy" -> "life difficult for his family" should be fine: unless he's damaging the institution of monarchy in the show, the two are essentially the same.

 Done

• "the first series drew criticism for satirising children" - children in general, or younger royals, or just George? What does the source say?

 Done Source says- "...has drawn criticism for satirizing the royal children and especially its take on 8-year-old Prince George, who is portrayed as entitled and conniving."

Sources:

• Some have quotes, some don't

 Done Removed the unnecessary ones but retained a few like the one pertaining to his godparents.

• Paywalled sources need the "subscription" parameter

 Done

• Inconsistent capitalisation in article titles

 Done

Images:

• Seem fine to me.

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have taken care of the prose. I will take a final look at it tomorrow. Thanks for taking it up by the way. Regards and have a great day. MSincccc (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well @Tim O'Doherty, I've addressed your comments for improving the article. You're welcome to take another look to verify my claims. Thanks a lot once again for reviewing it. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The ref titles still need work. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you please be a little more specific? I would greatly appreciate it. Regards and faithfully yours MSincccc (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The article titles in the refs need to be standardised per MOS:TITLECONFORM. Eg, in ref 5, "A Future Monarch is Born" should be "A future monarch is born", 36's "Winnie-the-Pooh Meets Queen Elizabeth II (and Prince George) in New Release" to "Winnie-the-Pooh meets Queen Elizabeth II (and Prince George) in new release". There are still paywalled sources not marked as such and some of the prose comments (merging paragraphs being one that sticks out) haven't been addressed either. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done @Tim O'Doherty You're welcome to have another look at the article. Thanks for your suggestions. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks good so far, although The Telegraph is also a paywalled source. I might do a source-to-text-integrity spotcheck later. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Well The Telegraph citations I found were accessible. I think it is because not all articles are solely meant for the subscribers. Looking forward to a positive result by tomorrow. I hope you are doing great both in mind and body. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to your spot check for source-to-text integrity @Tim O'Doherty. Please let me know if any further changes are needed. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Numbers picked at random:

• 9 Y
• 10 N - neither of the sources cited seem to mention Bodorgan Hall
• 11 - Ditto
• 16 Y
• 17 Y
• 26 Y
• 32 Y
• 33 Y
• 36 Y
• 41 Y

Just the issue of Bodorgan Hall to be resolved then. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done MSincccc (talk) 16:55, 6 April 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.