Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/William, Prince of Wales task force
Getting William's article to FA[edit]
Greetings!!! Anyone interested can join in and put forth their views as to how the main article can be got to FA status. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'd recommend using more book and scholarly sources and fewer news sources. We need, per WP:FVG, "high quality" sources. I'd limit myself to these news sources:
- Any newspapers of record or newspapers listed here should be OK. Additionally, FAs should be a summary of the "relevant literature"; I can't find many good books on William, but Prince William: Born to be King and HRH Prince William of Wales look fine. The Wikipedia Library will have a lot of good free material, as will Internet Archive and Google Scholar.
- You'll need to rewrite the entire article based on those sources, with better prose, compliance with the whole of the MoS and everything else at WP:FA? in mind. Use your sandbox and take it chunk by chunk. Create a rough skeleton first (something like this) and flesh it out. If we had an ODNB entry for William we'd use that, but we don't: the closest we have to compare the structure to is his EB entry. Compare your work to other royal FAs too. When you're done, come back here so everyone can have a look, do a peer review and then send it off to FAC. Good luck. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- One more point: try to keep the article as short as possible. No long listings of his many engagements or foreign trips; only do it when they're historically significant or unusually important. Elizabeth's article is 8.9k words long, out of a maximum of 15k, and it does a good job of summarising 97 years of life. William is only 41, so I'd expect his article to be 5.5k words at the very most. George VI's article is about 4k; William hasn't really done anything as important or lived a life as eventful as him, so should probably be even shorter; however, that's not realistic. Anything more than 6k words is just too long. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Tim O'Doherty I had also suggest that you revise and add People mag to your list. I have previously discussed it reliability and accuracy with Keivan and also you will notice that it has also reported on some exclusive and important info (such as
In July 2023, William became patron of the appeal to launch The Fleming Centre, driving a new global movement to tackle antimicrobial resistance
). Hence this suggestion. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)- @MSincccc - You're free to use it, you don't need my permission. Just be wary of what people might say at FAC. They're the people who you'll need to convince, not me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would say the current article has a good skeleton from which a better article can be developed. I would also suggest starting the article in your sandbox, condensing the parts that seem too detailed, and introducing better citations for parts where you have a better source available. It's not like we don't have FAs mostly sourced to online references (Angelina Jolie comes to mind), and the current version has some very good online sources that I would definitely keep, but I would use some print sources to cover sections such as early life and education, or marriage. The higher the quality of sources, the better. Also, don't forget that print sources should also adhere to WP:RS (no self-published sources or anything like that). Keivan.fTalk 19:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)