Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Will start review tomorrow. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tim O'Doherty Just in case you want to know I don't mind if you don't post comments until next Friday. Also in that scenario how long will it take to pass the article as GA? Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully will be passed before Christmas. Don't want to be doing wiki-work in the immediate run-up to the holidays. So, at most 2-3 weeks. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the sooner we wrap this up the better. The reviewer is free to post comments and you can respond when you are free to do so. The article will be passed when all the issues have been addressed. We still have to work on the prose. Keivan.f  Talk 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Keivan.f I know that the reviewer is free. It's been great so far collaborating with you both. Ideally, the sooner we wrap this up the better. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Things of questionable relevance:

 * While at Marlborough, she underwent an operation on the left side of her head, reportedly to remove a lump.
 * Trivial and hence have been removed. Thanks for suggesting.


 * Prior to her marriage, Middleton lived in an apartment owned by her parents in Chelsea, London, alongside her sister, which was estimated to be worth £1–1.4 million.
 * Relevant at least under Early life where its mentioned
 * I think details about where she lived are relevant, but the price can be omitted. It is an estimate after all.


 * She reportedly caught William's eye at a charity fashion show at the university in 2002 when she appeared on the stage wearing a see-through lace dress.
 * Relevant as it speaks of their first contact with each other and how William came to know her


 * She attended William's Passing Out Parade at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on 15 December 2006.
 * Relevant as to how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend


 * She and her family attended the Concert for Diana in July 2007, where she and William sat two rows apart.
 * Relevant because it speaks of how Middleton attended William's mother's concert despite their rumoured breakup at that time and how they exhibited their breakup by sitting apart


 * On 17 May 2008, Middleton attended the wedding of William's cousin Peter Phillips to Autumn Kelly in William's stead, and met Queen Elizabeth II for the first time.
 * Again relevant because it shows how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend


 * Middleton attended the Order of the Garter procession at Windsor Castle in June 2008, where William was made a Royal Knight of the Garter.
 * Relevant as to how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend


 * On 19 July 2008, she was a guest at the wedding of Lady Rose Windsor and George Gilman while William was away on military operations in the Caribbean, serving aboard HMS Iron Duke.
 * Relevant as to how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend even in Will's absence


 * Her wedding dress was designed by Sarah Burton at Alexander McQueen.
 * Alexander McQueen is one of her go-to fashion labels and her association with Sarah Burton as significant. Why, she even wore Burton's garments to the Coronation and her outfits have played a major role in Catherine's fashion. Hence this should stay.


 * Catherine keeps bees on the grounds of Anmer Hall.
 * Her brother apparently does the same thing, so it's sort of a family tradition. I think it is a notable personal activity, but if everyone insists on removing it, then I guess we can toss it away.


 * Renovations took 18 months at a cost of £4.5 million.
 * Discussing the renovations without the cost despite it being known makes space for lesser accuracy. Also the renovations were public money note it. But this info is above all relevant


 * She remained in hospital for three days.
 * Removed. The length of stay was not needed in this case.

(Done down to Duchess of Cambridge)

Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by nomination?
Per WP:GAI, if the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination. @MSincccc is currently both the author of 1.7% of the article and ranks 8th. I've both skimmed through and tried searching some keywords but could not find any post by MSincccc about GA on this article's talkpage. There are previous discussions they participated in, though. If this is a bad call, sorry. Otherwise, @Tim O'Doherty, are you going to continue the review? Aintabli (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Aintabli I am one of the top 10 in terms of authorship and have made the second largest number of edits to the page. Also I have made my stand clear on almost every discussion on the talk page these past two years that too regularly. I don't see any reason why my status as nominator should be considered drive-by? Both I and Keivanf. who is also working on the page have significantly contributed to this article. Further, I have mentioned the GA on the talk page. In all means, I am a very eligible nominator. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are the guidelines, which base it on authorship (top 5) and not number of edits. Could you link the talkpage entry you've mentioned the GA. If you have kind of asked for permission there (I'm not sure if that is what the guidelines refer to simply as post), that could mean you are eligible. Aintabli (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ask user Keivanf. He is the most significant contributor both in terms of authorship and edits and he is fine with my GA nomination. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of confused if you asked them about it anywhere. In any case, I'm going to ping @Keivan.f. If they give some permission here and now, all could be good. @Chipmunkdavis, would you agree that getting permission during a review is okay? Aintabli (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That would not a problem. The point of the drive-by restriction is to ensure the time of a reviewer is not wasted through nominators being unfamiliar with an article and its sources. So long as the nominator and other article editors are able to effectively field the review, there is no need to be bureaucratic about the timing of any agreement to collaborate on the GAN. CMD (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chipmunkdavis But I am very much familiar with the article and you can check my edit statistics for that reason as well. Also I am actively helping the reviewer along with Keivan. Just that the reviewer is presently engaged and will not be available during weekdays for now. Also once the prose is fixed to full accuracy he will be passing the page as GA. I have justified my contribs to the page multiple times before today itself. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything to further discuss. If Keivan.f sees this and gives a thumbs up like CMD, the review will continue. Aintabli (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information, although judging from the above table the reviewer still intends to look at a bit more than just prose. As I noted on WT:GAN, don't worry too much about this side-discussion. The drive-by rule of thumbs are intended to ensure that a reviewer receives effective engagement, so as long as that is occurring things will move along fine. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So is this matter done with? I have notified you of my immense contribs to the page since late 2021. MSincccc (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't expect anything to happen here. Aintabli made a good faith check-in and they received an answer they appear satisfied with. Please do continue with your efforts to improve this article. Best, CMD (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aintabli, CMD Thank you so much for showing interest in the review process for this article. Well, as Aintabli pointed out, MSincccc did not meet the criteria to nominate this article to begin with. But, it was my aim to bring it to GA status anyway. I believe they made the nomination in good faith and were supportive in bringing William's article to GA status. I really did not want to be possessive and put up hurdles just because I'm not the nominator, so I have been helping them along the way. Hopefully we'll be able to finish this review in a week or two. Best. Keivan.f  Talk 13:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)