Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePrince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh has been listed as one of the 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 20, 2024Good article nomineeListed


Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023[edit]

Kate Quinn used her imagination describing the fictional naval officer named Prince Philip of Greece in her 2021 novel, The Rose Code, about Bletchley Park. 2600:8807:9107:D100:E2B6:A67F:23ED:3B2B (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 16:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:REPEATLINK[edit]

@Neveselbert (mobile): why do you say no, there is no reason to link when this has been previously linked. I see you evoked MOS:REPEATLINK earlier. Can you point me to the specifics? Jay 💬 20:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:REPEATLINK, Generally, a link should appear only once in an article. I don't see any reason why Lord Mountbatten needs to be linked again when that article is hitherto linked twice in this article already, one to Lord Louis Mountbatten and one to Lord Mountbatten, both redirects to the same article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the Lord Louis Mountbatten link, which I had not found earlier, as I was looking only for Lord Mountbatten. The two links are different although they lead to the same target. In MOS:REPEATLINK, "Generally" is the keyword. It does allow for first occurences in sections, and in the case under discussion, the sections the links are in are far apart any way. Jay 💬 20:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's excessive since Lord Mountbatten is a figure most people familiar with Prince Philip would be familiar with. Regardless, I've changed the link/text to Lord Mountbatten of Burma, which is how he is named by the citation provided. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final years living with Pemny at Sandringham.[edit]

Can somebody create a section on final years living at Sandringham with Penny? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penny who? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Penny Knatchbull. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Well her own article makes no mention of Sandringham, so that might be a better place to start? Some actual sources would probably help a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Keivan.f (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Review coming soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Tim O'Doherty I hope you will help me wrap up Charlotte's GA review before we proceed with this one? Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc - There are still some things to do in Charlotte's first, namely the unreliable refs and some of the prose comments, which should be fairly quick to resolve. Don't worry: I can manage two GANs simultaneously. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty I did implement the changes in the prose and requested you to help me with the two refs as I could not find them on Google myself. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussions about other articles limited to their own space. Keivan.fTalk 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f Charlotte's article has been passed as GA. So, no worries about that now. I hope that being one of the prime authors of Philip's article I can help with the GA process. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that there is a [page needed] tag in the arms section. Can this be added? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it tomorrow. I had searched for an online version of the book before, but I have to redo it since it seems that I don't have the information on hand anymore. Keivan.fTalk 03:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find a copy of the book anywhere. I have asked another major contributor for their input but I'm afraid it they don't have access to it, then I might have to remove that part. It is not unsourced, but is not 'precisely' sourced either. I guess I'll just hide the text. Keivan.fTalk 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out no one has access to the book at the moment. I just hid the text in the hope that someone might be able to access it in the future. Keivan.fTalk 03:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I had fixed a whole lot of parameters and cleaned up spaces which were unnecessarily taking up a lot of space. By the way, @Keivan.f what does Tim mean by "third cousins through Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark - this link is freakishly long: can it be more strategically placed?" as no such sentence exists in the article as per WikiBlame. That's the only prose-related comment yet to be resolved. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of it. Keivan.fTalk 04:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
I enjoyed reading this; nicely written.
  • Shortly after Philip's birth, his maternal grandfather, Lord Milford Haven - you've already detailed this above, and could be trimmed to simply "shortly after Philip's birth Lord Milford Haven" or similar.

 Done

  • Greece suffered significant losses in the war, and the Turks made substantial gains - comma needed?

 Done

  • The commanding officer of the army, General Georgios Hatzianestis, - since there's only one, you can lose the set of commas.

 Done

  • also believed to be in danger, and Alice - comma needed?

 Done

  • Philip's family settled in France, in a house in the Paris suburb - could simplify: "Philip's family settled in a house in the Paris suburb..."

 Done

  • In 1930, Philip was sent to the United Kingdom - comma again (won't point out the rest of them after this), but you've already spelled out "United Kingdom": "UK" or "Britain" would be fine (my preference is the latter).

 Done

  • Lord Louis Mountbatten - "Lord Mountbatten"?

 Not done Sorry about it, but DrKay has reverted it with a suitable edit summary to support his actions.

  • third cousins through Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark - this link is freakishly long: can it be more strategically placed?

 Done I think the placement is fine, but I removed the degree of cousinship to make the sentence simpler.

  • Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Marriage can be merged, I think. "The engagement, announced to the public on 9 July 1947,[42] attracted some controvesy; Philip had no financial standing..." reads slightly better to me, and avoids two consecutive sentences beginning with "The engagement".

 Done

  • Marion Crawford wrote, "Some of the King's advisors - comma could be a colon.

 Done

  • In Charles and Diana, I'd also say that the third and fourth paragraph could be merged without issue.

 Done It was the second and third paragraphs though. There is no fourth paragraph in that section.

  • wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle; wedding of their granddaughter Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank - both of these links, I think, could be reduced down to just linking through "the wedding", and you could add links to the people mentioned too (Harry, Markle, Eugenie and Brooksbank).

 Done

  • The latter four paragraphs in Final years and retirement all begin with "In [MONTH] [YEAR]": try to vary it a bit.
  • When addressing the Duke of Edinburgh, as with any male member of the royal family except the monarch, the rules of etiquette were to address him the first time as Your Royal Highness and after that as Sir. - is this necessary?

minus Removed

That's me for prose. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
  • A few of the ref titles aren't in sentence case (eg Prince Philip Has a Mouthful Of a Title. And, Often, His Foot -> "Prince Philip has a mouthful of a title. And, often, his foot").
  • Took care of it.
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Well the EARWIG is alarmingly high at over 60% presently. @Tim O'Doherty
You don't simply look at the score. Most of it is because the page was analyzed against this blog and this website (these three URLs particularly 1, 2, 3), which appear to have copied their info from Wikipedia.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  • With Elizabeth on their 1951 tour of Canada, meeting then Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent (right) - per MOS:JOB, "prime minister". Also recommend "the then-prime minister" to avoid a false title (is (right) needed either?).

 Done

  • Her Majesty the Queen at Breakfast painted by Philip in 1957. Biographer Robert Lacey described the painting as "a tender portrayal, impressionistic in style, with brushstrokes that are charmingly soft and fuzzy".

- I'd recommend "his biographer" or "the biographer".  Done

  • Philip typically walked a few steps behind Elizabeth in public. - this photo is a bit small at the display size: what would you say about this one?

 On hold Well the present image seems to be fine as it is.

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Apologies, time got away from me. Spotcheck tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck[edit]

Forgot about this—sorry. Doing now.

  • 1(a) - checkY
  • 21 - checkY
  • 41 - (found on Internet Archive) ☒N - says 10 July: is this wrong?
  • 61 - assume this works with the other source.
    • The London Gazette is fine. Once you open it up there's a link to a PDF. The information is given in the second column on that page.
  • 81 - IA link, ☒N can't find it
  • 101 - checkY
  • 121 - again can't find it: is there something wrong with the editions? The one I'm using is 2004.
  • 141 - checkY
  • 161 - checkY
  • 181 - checkY
  • 201 - checkY
  • 221 - checkY
  • 241 - Heald yes, Brandreth no.
    • Don't have access to the hardcover now, but since you have access to the archived version I do wonder whether you have the same problem verifying the info on the page Elizabeth II. Because the book is cited there too and there is overlap between the two articles. I'm trying to figure out what the issue is.

Few issues to sort out, and wondering what went wrong with Brandreth. Might just be using the wrong edition here. Happy to be corrected. Cheers—Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, was the wrong version. The other works just fine. Will have a look over the full thing tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty I did add the URL, ISBN, and page numbers as suggested by DrKay on your talk page. However, please take another look as I may have overlooked or made a mistake. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was an error. You should have altered it within the bibliography section. User:Neveselbert already took care of it. Keivan.fTalk 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

Portrait of Philip, 1992
Portrait of Philip, 1992
  • ... that Prince Philip (pictured) was the first member of the British royal family to fly in a helicopter? Source: [1]
    • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by MSincccc (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

MSincccc (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article qualifies via recently achieving Good Article status. SFNs don't work on this page, but I was able to confirm the hook through the cite in the article itself. Obviously, as a GA about a major figure, it is long enough, well-sourced, and quite presentable. No QPQ is needed—you did this before getting 5 DYKs? Well done. Hook itself is pretty interesting; only suggestion I would give before confirming is specifying British royal family, as many readers would think of other royal families upon seeing the phrase. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brandreth 2004, p. 259