Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Catherine, Princess of Wales/archive1

Catherine, Princess of Wales

 * Nominator(s): MSincccc (talk), Keivan.f (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

We have collaborated on enhancing the article Catherine, Princess of Wales by updating its sources and refining its prose. With our combined efforts, we believe the article is now ready for submission to FAC. We seek to present a comprehensive and well-researched portrayal of Catherine's life and contributions, and we are committed to ensuring its accuracy and quality throughout the review process. Your feedback and support would be greatly appreciated as we endeavour to achieve recognition for this important piece of work. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Done.
 * Further fixed a few alt text for a neater presentation and enhanced accuracy.


 * File:CatherineSignature.svg: signatures are not generally PD in the UK
 * Removed.


 * File:Cambridge_family_at_Trooping_the_Colour_2019_-_03.jpg is quite poor quality
 * No other pictures of the five of them together exists on the Commons. Personally I think it's better than nothing, though if the Community thinks it's of no encyclopedic value then we'll discard it.
 * File:Royals.18d884.1850611.jpg: source link is dead
 * It was uploaded by User:Janwikifoto. His identity has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team Software, to which I do not have access. But given their track record I really doubt that there is a copyright issue here.
 * It appears that that user has had a number of images deleted over copyright concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed it as a precautionary measure to avoid problems down the line. Keivan.f  Talk 04:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Arms_of_Catherine,_Princess_of_Wales.svg needs a tag for the original design. Ditto File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Kate_Middleton.svg, File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge_(2011-2019).svg, File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge.svg, File:Combined_Coat_of_Arms_of_William_and_Catherine,_the_Duke_and_Duchess_of_Cambridge.svg
 * These are the sources: 1, 2, 3. They are already cited in the article's body, so I suppose you want them added to the file descriptions?
 * Those sources indicate these designs are copyrighted? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The arms were recreated by User:Sodacan for use on the Commons and many of them are in use at Coat of arms of the United Kingdom. There have been some discussions about some of the arms and monograms (1, 2, 3) and the result has been mostly 'keep' since they can be classified as original work. I think even the BBC copied them from us in two instances (1, 2). Keivan.f  Talk 04:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not appear that those discussions arrived at the conclusion that these are original work - two were discussions unrelated to copyright, and the third involved a design old enough to be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How should we proceed then @Nikkimaria? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You'd need to either find appropriate tags for these or remove them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria Should I temporarily remove them until I can find suitable tags for the noted images? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria Removed the images mentioned from the article in the absence of an appropriate tag. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, remove them for now. But this is beyond the scope of this discussion. I single handedly cannot determine the copyright status of several coats of arms which is why I'll most probably start a deletion discussion on the Commons to address the issue. Keivan.f  Talk 15:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Coats of arms should be OK as long as they are drawn from the blazon and not direct copies, per Commons:Commons:Coats of arms. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Should I re-insert the Coat of Arms that have been removed then without an appropriate image tag @DrKay and @Nikkimaria? Do let us know. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on the Commons before seeing your message. If Commons:Commons:Coats of arms does indeed apply then I can withdraw that deletion request. Otherwise, I'll let the community decide because we are here to discuss the content of this article not the copyright status of several coats of arms in detail and I feel this discussion is going off track. Keivan.f  Talk 17:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria and @DrKay Do you have any further suggestions for us regarding the images? Looking forward to your responses. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Re "needs a tag for the original design"—there is no original design for any of these. Coats of arms are rendered based on their blazon—a written description in standardized language. Each rendition is an original work in its own right. These files are, indeed, missing the tag, which clarifies this issue, but in terms of copyright and licensing they are all already appropriately tagged. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the feedback received here and at the deletion discussion, I have restored the coats of arms. There is nothing wrong with their copyright status apparently. Keivan.f  Talk 18:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Potternewton_Hall_Estate;_home_of_Olive_Middleton_(nee_Lupton)_and_her_cousin_Baroness_von_Schunck_(nee_Kate_Lupton).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The uploader is still active on the Commons so I left a message to enquire about the file's origin. I'm waiting for their response. Keivan.f  Talk 04:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed the image. I did not receive feedback from the uploader despite waiting for almost a week. Keivan.f  Talk 18:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria Do you have any additional suggestions regarding the images used, their captions, and licensing? If so, please share your thoughts. Thank you for your feedback. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nikkimaria Are you satisfied with the images used, their captions and it's licensing? If yes, please do let us know of your verdict. Also, any further suggestions to improve the images would be greatly appreciated. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I remain of the opinion that File:Cambridge_family_at_Trooping_the_Colour_2019_-_03.jpg is a poor-quality image, and there's another of the five in the article already. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed the File:Cambridge_family_at_Trooping_the_Colour_2019_-_03.jpg. @Nikkimaria Could you please tell me which other images are poor in quality and need to be fixed? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not have quality concerns regarding other images. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria Thanks for clarifying. Do you have any further suggestions for the image review, or does it conclude here? If so, please let us know your thoughts and your verdict. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no further suggestions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

750h

 * Comments to come soon. 750h+ 05:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * lead
 * I feel like "created" sounds weird. recommend replacing with "declared"


 * early life, education and career
 * remove "at that stage" since we already know it was after her mother's retirement
 * remove "had"
 * I feel like isn't particularly necessary, it's a pretty random year and isn't usually included in these types of articles.


 * personal life
 * ==> "After her graduation, Middleton and her family faced intensive tabloid press scrutiny."
 * remove the comma
 * remove the comma.
 * The London Clinic should not have a capital "the". It's somewhat like "the Beatles".
 * ==> "for the social and emotional development of youngsters". Also change the word "youngsters", it's not very formal. Maybe change it to "young people"?


 * charity work
 * => "In May 2021, Catherine received her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by"
 * why is there no space between the two sentences
 * ==> "In March 2022 amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Catherine and William made a donation to help the refugees."
 * ==> "The same month, she and William voiced the Mental Health Minute message again, which broadcast on"


 * privacy and the media
 * ==> "The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, while being chased by paparazzi in August 1997[299] has since influenced her elder son William's attitude towards the media."


 * titles, styles, etc
 * remove "automatically"
 * change "normally" to "formally"

That's all i have, nice work. But before supporting I might wait for a more experienced editor to join the conversation. you'll probably benefit from pinging some like SchroCat, HAL333, ChrisTheDude, or the people on the list of WP:FAM. Best, 750h+ 11:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * verdict
 * @750h+, I have addressed all your comments and made the necessary changes. Your support for Catherine's nomination will be greatly appreciated. Please put forward you suggestions, if you have any more. Looking forward to a positive response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean support. Waiting for another editor before i can fully support though. (consider pinging an experienced editor). 750h+ 13:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging experienced users on 750h+'s suggestion:, ,, , , , ,  and . Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * MSinccc, that's not you ping users, you do . Also please do not ping that many people, three or around there is ok. 750h+ 13:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have pinged the users exactly the way you suggested. talk) 13:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've reverted one of these suggestions, namely "first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine", as there are several different vaccines. Also, I'm not particularly convinced about the "received [...] by NHS staff". How about "Catherine's first dose of COVID-19 vaccine was administered by NHS staff at [...]"? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The present sentence is fine as it stands. Thanks for your suggestion by the way @Rosbif73. Please feel free to leave any further suggestions you have. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Another comment: @MSincccc, you have recently harmonised the capitalisation of the titles of cited sources. I can't find anything in the content guidelines or style guide about this, but it feels wrong to be changing the capitalisation actually used by the source itself. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rosbif73 Its as per MOS:TITLECONFORM. Tim O'Doherty, who reviewed the article and it's related ones for GA, suggested that the capitalisation be made consistent as per MOS:TITLECONFORM. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I wasn't aware of TITLECONFORM, thanks for the link. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sodium
I intend to get to doing a review soonish. Sohom ( talk ) 22:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Early_life,_education_and_career

 * Do we need upper-middle class in the first sentence, is this something the sources emphasize?
 * The fact that she is a "commoner" set to become the queen is discussed in the sources: 1, 2, etc. But it's also pointed out that her family were not poor 3. So I'd say those three words sum the whole thing up perfectly but if everyone insists on their removal then I'll definitely oblige.
 * This first paragraph is a mess in terms of a timeline. It starts with the subject being born before then talking about the mother's occupation a few years later and then catapulting into her retirement and then post retirement health of the company which she helped found. All the while the reader is left wondering what this has to do with Catherine herself.
 * The second paragraph feels even more out of place, and feels a bit unrelated. I would rewrite and absorb this paragraph into the first paragraph.
 * I trimmed and merged the two paragraphs. I have kept the info on her paternal and maternal family background to some extent. I'll wait until you reach the "Ancestry" section before moving around information on her family. That way I can get a finalized frame based on which I can trim/remove/alter the info.
 * -- she was enrolled into St Andrew's School, ... at the age of four?
 * Yes. Per the BBC: "Catherine joined the school at four years old when her family returned to West Berkshire in 1986 after spending two-and-a-half years in Jordan. She was predominantly a day girl but boarded for part of the week in her later years."
 * she a gold Duke of Edinburgh Award -- probably needs to be rephrased, "achieve" doesn't sound right here.
 * Rephrased and moved to the appropriate place.
 * before focusing on art history. -- solely is unnecessary
 * Removed.
 * The second last paragraph of the section reads like a laundry list of things that Catherine did before she married royalty, maybe instead of doing this, we could give a more general overview and contextualize it by merging in "Pre-marriage relationship with Prince William" (which appears to have happened in about the same timeframe)
 * Renamed the section to "Early life and education". Trimmed the paragraph, then divided the info between "Pre-marriage relationship with Prince William" and "Charity work" with information concerning her career and place of living put in the former, and the information on her pre-marital charity work in the latter.
 * The last paragraph seems almost unrelated it should be absorbed elsewhere.
 * Moved to footnote [a].

Pre-marriage relationship with Prince William

 * that single statement is provided without context, why did she recieve intense tabloid coverage?
 * Clarified. According to the sources it stemmed from the fact that she was dating William, which the article now mentions.
 * this feels like a unnecessary amount of detail?
 * Removed.
 * Make this a seperate sentence instead of akwardly chaining two things together.
 * Done.
 * What? Why? Huh? (This sentence doesn't fit in and disrupts the flow of the paragraph and should be moved somewhere else)
 * Removed. It referred to the grounds of Anmer Hall which is discussed in the previous sentence, but I agree. It's trivial and can be discarded.
 * Done.
 * That's it for right now, I intend to go through the rest over the weekend. My intial impressions with this review are unfortunately that the article will need a lot of restructuring and rewriting to become cohesive enough for a FA. I can see that a lot of effort went into tracking all the sources and compiling all of this information, and I'm really impressed by the level of detial, however, it currently feels a bit all over the place and without a cohesive narrative it's a bit of a mixed bag of information. Sohom ( talk ) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sohom Datta Thank you for your comments. Let us know if you have any further suggestions for the article. It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tried my best to address all of your concerns. I'm glad you found the article appropriately detailed. We did our best to ensure we are not missing anything of value. Will carry on once you have posted all your comments. Cheers. Keivan.f  Talk 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More from me Sohom ( talk ) 07:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sohom Datta I have addressed most of your comments. Thanks for your suggestions. They are greatly appreciated. Please do let us know if you have any further inputs to share regarding Catherine's article. I hope my responses to the suggestions are clear. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sohom Datta I have addressed most of your comments. Thanks for your suggestions. They are greatly appreciated. Please do let us know if you have any further inputs to share regarding Catherine's article. I hope my responses to the suggestions are clear. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * there should be something more to add here? Did she handle it well?
 * Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to add more details. However, we believe the current information sufficiently highlights the significance of Catherine's first official engagement after her wedding. By keeping the details concise, we aim to maintain the article's focus and readability. We hope this approach aligns with the overall objective of providing a clear and informative summary. Thank you again for your valuable input.
 * Added a short sentence which clarifies that the meeting was "warm" as a per the sources.
 * The first paragraph is again a laundry list of "she did this". Try to put atleast a line or two to contextualize the events (for example was there any particularly notable coverage of their tour of Canada or the US ?)
 * The detailed information regarding their visits has been covered in this article. Furthermore, the article 2011 royal tour of Canada covers their first major tour after their marriage in depth. Here, we are only summarising the overseas visits she undertook in an official capacity. Hence, all the engagements she carried out have been left out, following the GA reviewer's recommendations. Otherwise, the article would be unnecessarily long.
 * Similar issues with the 4th paragraph
 * Similar response as above. This article covers all the information regarding the official overseas visits in detail. We are only summarising here so as to not have an unnecessarily long biography.
 * that's a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Also I wonder if the Ireland trip is particularly important to include here. For the whole section, I would err on the side of including only the most important trips and then contextualizing and building a narrative/describing notable events instead of trying to pack as many events as possible.
 * Given that The Troubles lasted for three decades and William's great-great-uncle was assassinated by the IRA in 1979, I would say any trip to Ireland by the royal family is important. Even to this day their visits to Ireland are announced at the very last minute.
 * Solved the WP:SEAOFBLUE issue by replacing the names with "three of the country's counties".
 * The following day, William was Prince of Wales by his father -- created doesn't make sense in this context
 * That's the standard usage in this context and can be found in countless reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Same issues as above. That is a laundry list and a SEAOFBLUE.
 * Some of them were already discussed in the prose with context, so I linked them there instead. The other eight that were not mentioned specifically in the prose, I turned into a footnote (as has been done for articles such as Diana, Princess of Wales and Queen Camilla).
 * this is confusing, I assume she handpicked the art in the Art room and not specifically the art room
 * Using "the art in The Art Room" could be misleading as it suggests she selected specific pieces of art within The Art Room rather than the organisation itself. Referring to "The Art Room" directly clarifies that she chose the entire charity or program, which provided art therapy to disadvantaged children.
 * The source capitalizes the in "the Art Room"
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion.
 * COVID-19 pandemic gets mentioned in the previous sentence, maybe say.
 * Done. Thanks for your suggestion.
 * Do we know which vaccine she took?
 * From the cited source where it is clearly mentioned as such.
 * No, unfortunately we don't know the type, neither for her nor for other family members.

From Tim riley
The nominator has invited my comments. I think the article looks comprehensive. I think the heraldic excursus is seriously superfluous and I suggest it should be removed. The article List of titles and honours of Catherine, Princess of Wales would be a more suitable location for this sort of obscure information. I think the switch from calling her "Middleton" to calling her "Catherine" is well managed.  Tim riley  talk   17:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Tim riley Thank you for your suggestions. It would be addressed soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tim riley I have moved the Arms section to the article concerning her titles and honours. Do you want me to trim, add or modify the article any further? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing more from me. Good work as far as I can see, and I wish the article well at FAC.  Tim riley  talk   18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I know enough about the topic to feel confident in offering my support, but I certainly don't oppose the promotion of this article.  Tim riley  talk   12:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

From Ssilvers

 * I am not sure that the WP:LEAD contains all the Lead-worthy facts about the subject. It mentions her charity work and fashion impact but does not give an overview of her other public appearances or describe what she normally has done as a member of the Royal family (before her illness). Nor does it nod to the extensive "Privacy and the media" section.  The Lead also says that Catherine was listed by Time mag as " as a finalist in 2018" (is this Leadworthy?), but it does not say that anywhere in the body of the article.
 * @Ssilvers I have rephrased the lead based on your comments. If you have any further recommendations to improve the article, please let us know. I look forward to your response.
 * Removed the phrase "as a finalist in 2018" from the lead. I will be revising the lead shortly. Thanks for your time and suggestions.
 * The Lead says that she "held several jobs in retail and marketing", but the body of the article says that she was an accessory buyer for a year (part time) and worked as a "project manager" for the family business. This indicates that either (1) the Lead has not been updated to reflect improvements to the body of the article or (2) a more serious problem with the research of the body of the article.
 * [This source] says that Before marrying into the Royal Family, Kate Middleton spent time working as project manager for Party Pieces. She stopped the job ahead of her 2011 royal wedding to Prince William. whereas [this one from the Guardian] reports that Her unspectacular career at Jigsaw and then at Party Pieces, where she was responsible for the website and catalogue, has at least demonstrated an interest in design, marketing and fashion. The latter also reports on her career as an accessory buyer.
 * Right, so the Lead and the body of the article are inconsistent. And if you are going to mention retail at all, I'd say "buyer for retail". -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the present version fine @Ssilvers? I have removed the phrase "in retail and marketing" from the lead.
 * Yes, ok, but the Lead still does not give an overview of her other public appearances or describe what she normally has done as a member of the Royal family (before her illness), and it does not give an overview of the "Privacy and the media" section, per WP:LEAD.

Good luck with the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of the prose is very vague or makes the timeline of events confusing. For example, I saw a reference to "the latter" that was difficult to relate to the intended person (I fixed it), and I see sentences like this:  "Middleton, who was christened as a child, decided to be confirmed".  Did she go through with the confirmation or not?  If so, it would be much clearer to say that she "was confirmed", rather than that she made a decision to become confirmed, which is a less noteworthy fact than whether or not she actually *was* confirmed.
 * Done. Per The Guardian: There was no pressure for Kate Middleton to get confirmed – she did it because she wanted to, showing her strength of faith. She indeed went through with the confirmation.
 * Another example of this comes soon afterwards, where it says "Catherine assumed the style 'Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge'". The source says: "Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.”  The phrase "assumed the style" is problematic. This use of style is not familiar to many non-Brits, so it should either be linked to Style (form of address) or, better yet, say "title" instead of style. The term "assumed" -- did she insist on the title, or did the laws/rules/Queen give her that title?  A simple solution would be that she "received the title", although that would still beg the question of how, exactly, she got it.  Perhaps there is a link that would help. Finally, this source does not actually verify that it happened, just that it "will" happen.
 * This issue has been taken care of now. Thanks for the suggestion.
 * There is still the passive voice problem created by "assumed". The sentence explains "why" she got the title, but now how.  I recall that there was intense discussion about it at the time, so I don't believe it was dictated by law or precise custom.  Was it "granted" to her by the queen, did she "choose" it?  Did she and William choose it?  Was it based (by whom?) on a previous Princess of Wales's style?  Not that it is so important, but it is a symptom of my concerns about the prose in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Was it "granted" to her by the queen? Yes. The use of primary sources is not encouraged by Wikipedia, but for the sake of clarification, the following is from the royal family's official website: The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus. Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge and Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge. I will adjust the wording accordingly.
 * Thanks, but you do not understand my question. It was about exact style "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge".  I think the right answer is "no", that it was decided in consultation with William and palace advisors, and slightly different from the style used by, for example, Diana.  But my problem is with the quasi-passive voice problem created by "assumed".  If we can't state it with certainty, it could more easily be solved by "became styled...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that wives of future kings have not had the exact same style historically as you pointed out. Alexandra of Denmark was "HRH The Princess of Wales" from the beginning as her husband was first in line to the throne, while Mary of Teck was "HRH The Duchess of York" as her husband was second in line at the time of their marriage. I cannot say with certainty how they decide on a style, but to solve the 'passive voice' issue I'll follow your advice and change it to "became styled....".
 * Thanks. I'm not sure my phrasing is much better, but at least it removes the implication that we know she chose the style herself. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ...were respectively third, fourth and fifth in the line of succession to the British throne.... Shouldn't we say that, after the death of Elizabeth, they moved up to 2nd, 3rd and 4th?  Or just say that instead, as it seems more important to readers today than the order at their birth.
 * Done. Thanks for your suggestion.
 * "Her medical leave from public engagements was subsequently extended." Until when?  Has she returned to public engagements?
 * Unfortunately, Kensington Palace has not mentioned any specific date or time for her return. She will be returning to public engagements only when she has been cleared to do so by her medical team.
 * When William became Prince of Wales, Catherine became Princess of Wales
 * Fixed it in lead as per your suggestions. Thank you.


 * @Ssilvers Thank you for your suggestions. I have addressed the majority of them and will ensure the remaining points are resolved soon. If you have any further recommendations to improve the article, please let us know. I look forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Bit of a general question: How reliable are British newspapers when discussing the royal family? My impression is that between sensationalism, cozy relationships between media and royal family etc. there is quite some scope for unreliability. I'd be a lot more comfortable with the sourcing if it relied far more on biographies than news media. "news.com.au" doesn't seem like the correct way to format a source. What's "www.iol.co.za" and "popsugar.uk"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The BBC, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Guardian are all generally reliable sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines. The "news.com.au" citation will be replaced soon. Unfortunately, there are no book sources available for this article's subject at the moment. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to any further suggestions.
 * Kind regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * there are no book sources available for this article's subject at the moment Really? Seems unlikely, considering the coverage that the pair have received nationally and internationally. Let's take a look.

Catherine Middleton: The Making of a Modern Queen; Catherine Middleton: Her First Year as HRH the Duchess of Cambridge; A Modern Royal Marriage: Prince William of Wales & Catherine Middleton; The Ancestry of Catherine Middleton; Kate: The Making of a Princess; Kate: A Biography; William & Catherine: Their Romance and Royal Wedding; Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge; The Story of Catherine: Duchess by Day, Mother by Night; Kate: The Future Queen; The Duchess of Cambridge.H'mmm. Seems to be sufficient to build a pretty decent article out of. Not every single one may be the highest quality RS, but it is impossible that most aren't. It's hard to see how in its current state it passes WP:FA? 1C, and by extension, possibly 1D also. Cheers,  ——Serial Number 54129  17:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I too am wondering how this article meets the FAC sourcing requirements when not a single ones of these books has been used as a source? There are also ten citations to Hello! magazine, which Headbomb's "unreliable sources" script calls a "generally unreliable source". Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Esculenta and @Serial Number 54129 Thanks for your suggestions. They will be taken care of soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All references to Hello magazine have been replaced and removed. I don't why the other nominator gave the impression that no books have been cited in this article. At the time of writing this: citation #6 uses Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Cultural Consumption, Classification and Power, and Prince William: A Biography as a source; citation # 7 and 283 use Kate - A Biography of Kate Middleton; citation #13 uses The Ancestry of Catherine Middleton; citation #28 uses Kate: The Making of a Princess; citation #354 uses William & Catherine: A Royal Wedding Souvenir; citation #355 uses Battle of Brothers, etc. So basically the article has both online and print sources. Keivan.f  Talk 21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can someone please confirm whether the nominators have reviewed each of the books listed by Serial Number above to harvest the source's encyclopedic information, or, on the other hand, decided not to use each source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. Kate - A Biography of Kate Middleton, The Ancestry of Catherine Middleton, and Kate: The Making of a Princess are already used in this article. This book is straight up trash with a manipulated photo of Kate on its cover. This book is pretty much just about their wedding, and there is so much we can fit into this article about their wedding ceremony. This book doesn't have a proper publisher attached to it. This one is pretty much about her style for which we have a separate article. These two (1, 2) are pretty outdated. Could they have been used as a source for some of the information that is already here? I would personally say yes, but I honestly don't think their absence from this article could be equated to valuable information being withheld from readers here. I'll leave detailed evaluation to the commentators here and if they decide that any of these books is worthy of inclusion then I will try to utilize it as a reference. Keivan.f  Talk 22:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please add any of the more useful ones that you nevertheless decided not to use under "Further reading". -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On a procedural matter, shouldn't all the book sources be listed at the bottom of the article above "Further reading" under a Sources heading, with the cites to them given in "short citation form"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it. Thanks for the suggestion. Keivan.f  Talk 22:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "royal duties and commitments in support of the British monarch." What is the difference between the two?
 * The present version acknowledges the breadth and depth of Catherine's contributions, showcasing her comprehensive engagement with both formal royal duties and additional commitments, providing a fuller picture of her role and impact within the monarchy.

Royal duties encompass official tasks expected of royals, such as attending events, representing the monarchy, and engaging in charitable work. Commitments extend beyond these formal obligations and include personal, professional, or philanthropic endeavors that support the monarchy's values and goals. While duties are often prescribed by tradition, commitments may include discretionary activities aligned with the royal family's broader mission and interests.
 * Are the health issues worth mentioning in the lead? It could be argued that given the prominence of the discussions of her health, that many readers would be looking for some word.
 * Just as the Earthshot Prize stands as William's most significant project to date, Heads Together represents Catherine's. This initiative, unrelated to her current medical condition, underscores her longstanding advocacy for mental health and early years. Its mention in the lead is significance, given its prominence and her enduring commitment to these causes.
 * I think by "health issues" Wehwalt is referring to her recent cancer diagnosis. There were lengthy discussions about this on the talk page and one of the concerns raised was WP:RECENTISM. Nevertheless, I added one sentence at the end of the last paragraph in the lede.
 * "Her paternal family benefited financially from trust funds and her great-grandparents Noël and Olive Middleton, played host to members of the British royal family in the 1920s through to the 1940s." I wonder somewhat at the placement of the comma. I might delete it as well as the word "and" and place a semicolon after "funds".
 * Done
 * "She boarded part-weekly at St Andrew's in her later years." I might add "there" at the end. Is it known when she left one school and started another?
 * "sports" Should this be "sport" in British English?
 * Done
 * "women's field hockey team" Since these are children who attend this school, should this be "girl's"?
 * Done.
 * In this context, "women's" is more appropriate as it refers to the age group and level of competition rather than the gender of the students. Since Marlborough College is a co-educational boarding school, it's more common to use "women's" to denote the level of the field hockey team, regardless of the age of the players. Therefore, "women's field hockey team" is the preferred phrasing.
 * Preferred by who? The school uses "girls".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wehwalt Then I had also use "girl's". I was previously referring the OED solely and thus based opinion. I will change it presently. Regards.

MSincccc (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "seat at the University of Edinburgh" should "seat" be "place" in British English?
 * Done.
 * More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wehwalt Thanks for your suggestions. I have addressed all of them and left a suitable response when U did not make the suggested change. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * " in William's stead" Maybe "in William's place" but I'm something at a loss to understand this. She was substituting for William? At a fairly major family event with HM present? Really?
 * Thank you for your feedback. The phrase "in William's stead" was intended to convey that Middleton attended the wedding in place of Prince William, who was unable to attend. To improve clarity, I have revised the sentence.
 * You seem inconsistent in whether to hyphenate "search and rescue"
 * Done.
 * "Middleton, who was christened as a child, was confirmed into the Church of England preceding her wedding.[66] The confirmation service was conducted on 10 March at St James's Palace by the Bishop of London with her family and William in attendance.[67]" It feels like you are telling us she was confirmed once in each sentence. Can the sentences be combined?
 * Thank you for your suggestion. I have combined the sentences to avoid redundancy and improve clarity.
 * "Catherine became styled " Is this the proper phrasing?
 * The phrase "Catherine became styled" is correct according to traditional British titles and styles. However, for clarity and consistency, it has been rephrased.
 * Kensington Palace is linked at the start of "Health" not too long after it was previously linked.
 * Thank you for highlighting this. I have removed the redundant link to Kensington Palace in the 'Health' section to avoid over-linking.
 * "She was formally introduced to public life in February 2011" What does "formally introduced" mean in this context?
 * I have rephrased the sentence for clarity. It simply means that she made her first public appearance in an official capacity in February 2011.
 * More to follow--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
You invited, and finally I have a bit of extra time. I'll look at the lead in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox
 * I don't need the hospital where she was born there. Enough in the body.
 * Removed.

Early life
 * How about introducing at least her parents (if not other ancestors also) before she is baptised. Then the younger brothers?
 * Done


 * "She briefly studied psychology" - when and where, or simultaneously?
 * Done. I have rephrased the sentence for clarity and to avoid repetition.

Pre-marriage relationship with Prince William
 * how about: Relationship with Prince William?
 * Pre-marriage relationship is the most preferable term. Consensus was achieved discussed here.


 * "She previously lived in an apartment owned by her parents in Chelsea, London, with her sister." - How about saying that when it begins?
 * Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised the sentence to indicate her living arrangement more clearly from the beginning.


 * "who was christened as a child, was confirmed into the Church of England" - if she was not baptised into the CoE, say so in the beginning, but if, why repeat it at all?
 * Done.

Marriage
 * "The couple married on 29 April 2011 at Westminster Abbey (St Catherine's Day)." It took a bit until it dawned to me that the saint matched her name ;) - why not "at Westminster Abbey on St Catherine's Day"?
 * Done

 Patronages
 * I suggest to have a few more subheaders such as sports, photography, addiction.
 * Done.

Privacy
 * That section is too detailed for my taste. A few relevant instances perhaps, but the minutia in a separate article?

Lead
 * Can you keep chronology and first mention meeting William, then graduation (4 years later)?
 * Done.

That's all. Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gerda Arendt Thanks for your suggestions. I have covered all of them except the "Privacy and media" related one which I will be covering later. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt I have trimmed the Privacy and media section retaining essential information along with the citations. Looking forward to knowing your thoughts on the refined version. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the changes, I feel understood ;) - I support for FA.
 * I'd like to discuss two points, here or on the talk, you decide.
 * I am not happy with the rendering of Princess of Wales (more) in the infobox which I didn't notice last night. In this case I think it's more part of the name than a title. It isn't italic in the article. Possible changes:
 * find a way to at least not make it italic
 * have (more) in an new line
 * move Princess of Wales to the name and say (list) in title
 * The discussion you pointed me to was Pre-marriage vs. Pre-wedding, but my suggestion is to drop any and leave a neutral "Relationship". The term Pre-marriage relationship is (for my taste) too close to premarital sex which - as that article says - is a sin in some cultures, and the English Wikipedia has readers from all over the world with different background. The kind of relationship needs not to be described in the header. I guess 99% of our readers know already that she became his wife when they come to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt Thank you for your feedback regarding the rendering of "Princess of Wales" in the infobox. I understand your concerns and agree that it is important to ensure consistency and clarity. Hence I have made the necessary changes. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your fast reaction, probably before I even got to fine-tune ;) - The (more) stands now (more than before) unexplained, more what? The reader doesn't see that the parameter is "title". (That's why the great Brian Boulton explicitly said "composer" when, for Percy Grainger, recently partly restored to this 2013 version, don't ask me why.) You could say "(titles)" or "List of titles", but that also should not appear italic. In infobox person, titles don't come italic, and later in the list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt I have replaced "more" with the phrase "List of titles and honours". Is it fine now? Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Much better, but needs no brackets, and should not be italic. I could imagine to suggest at the template talk that titles are not automatically italic, - I see many instances where it's not wanted. - What about the Pre-question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * found something: you could put the list in moretext, see Elizabeth II. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt I have replaced "Pre-marriage relationship..." with "Relationship with ..." in both William's and Catherine's articles. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Gerda Arendt. With regards to the infobox, I just removed the list of titles and honours altogether and just left her primary title there. That ensures that it remains consistent with other articles and also takes care of the problem you had with the vague word "more". Keivan.f  Talk 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * More than five weeks in and just a single support, despite quite a bit of interest. A consensus to promote is not forming and so I am going to archive it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply before it can be brought back here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)