Jump to content

Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateCatherine, Princess of Wales is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleCatherine, Princess of Wales has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowIn the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2005Articles for deletionKept
October 26, 2005Articles for deletionKept
April 27, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
August 4, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
December 21, 2023Good article nomineeListed
June 8, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 26, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 9, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Catherine, Princess of Wales (pictured), is a keen amateur photographer and the patron of the Royal Photographic Society, and has taken many official photographs of her children?
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 17, 2010.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Pinned Thread: Consensus on usage of "Catherine" vs. "Kate", "Kate Middleton"

[edit]

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.


The Wikipedia Community has reached a consensus on "Catherine" vs "Kate" in favor of Catherine. Please do not post threads on this subject without at least reading the following threads:

There are numerous additional threads on this subject in the archives as well. Safiel (talk)

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.

Feedback

[edit]

I was asked by MSincccc to provide some feedback here and while a lot of this article is out of my depth, I will give it a shot.

  • I'm noticing a couple single setence paragraphs which are a violation of MOS:LAYOUT
  • Make sure that acronyms are spelt out in full during first usage like (random example) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • Be careful with WP:PROSELINE, while not specifically apart of the FA criteria, it may be frowned upon by some reviewers
  • You have a couple different types of bundled refs going on. I would stick to one style of bundled refs.
  • For the book sources, it still seems to be majority of news type sources and not books or better sources. For section such as Ancestry, Titles, styles, and honours, and her personal + public life, I would be suprised if you couldn't find more book sources. Did you read through some more reliable sources on Kate and figure out which sources could be replaced with higher quality sources? Especially with biographies, people at FAC have very high expectations of the sourcing. I would expect you would run into issues at FAC with the current level of sourcing.

Hopefully this can help a bit. Best of luck! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]