Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales

No longer state King Charles as prince of wales in Diana’s infobox

No matter the Princess had died before 2022,the king should be stated as Charles III not Charles prince of wales in the page of the marriage status of the late princess. Him9 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It says in parenthesis what his current title is. Trillfendi (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

makes no sense. Diana married who was then the Prince of Wales, regardless of whether he was later crowned king as Charles III. It is unnecessary information, besides already known. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 4#Charles' name in the infobox for further explanation. Keivan.f^Talk 22:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

edit request

At the end of the first paragraph of the section Finances please change: "The ownership of Diana's wedding dress was also given to her sons." to "Diana's wedding dress was also given to her sons.", or, even better "Her wedding dress was also given to her sons. Thank you 76.14.122.5 (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Keivan.f^Talk 22:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Bringing to GA status

I think it is time to bring this article to GA status because it has the potential. I wanted to leave a message here first before starting the nomination process to see if anyone has any objections before a formal review. Keivan.f^Talk 22:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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:Diana, Princess of Wales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article, expect first comments either today or tomorrow. Glad to see this at GAN, as I'd worked on Charles III in March–May. Pinging Keivan.f as ChristieBot can have a delay sometimes. Will be using the following table. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be looking forward to reading your comments Tim O'Doherty. I will try my best to read the comments and address any potential issues on a daily basis. Looking forward to bringing this article to GA status with your input. Keivan.f^Talk 18:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I've read so far, this is a really good article, and I'm surprised by its readability and overall quality. Not had too much time today, so only done the lead and Early life sections. Comments below: ping Keivan.f. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Good work so far. More soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f - Probably nothing until Monday, sorry. Quite busy at the moment; might be able to do something tomorrow, but no promises. Telling you now because I'd feel guilty otherwise. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty That is absolutely fine. I myself am a little bit busy and stressed out for an exam which I have to pass this week so I won't really complain if things proceed slowly here for 5 or 6 days. After that I'll be ready to finish it up as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, feel free to leave comments whenever you like. Keivan.f^Talk 15:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty All done. You're welcome to take a look at them. Keivan.f^Talk 04:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f, not had much time recently. Will look in tomorrow and try to barrel through as much stuff as possible. Sorry about that, I know how frustrating it can be to have a review drag on forever. I've not forgotten about this, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Thanks for the update. Looking forward to reading your comments. Hopefully we can wrap this up soon with a good result. Keivan.f^Talk 02:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f - Will do as much as possible tomorrow; this will definitely, at least, be wrapped up before the end of the weekend. Told a lie on Monday, I did not "barrel through" much at all; apologies. I promise, this time, to go on a final blitz in the next two/three days. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Perfect. Will keep an eye on this page to implement the necessary changes as soon as possible so that we can wrap this up and then I can move on with other articles. Keivan.f^Talk 00:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty All done. When I checked earlier in the morning I saw a "pending" sign next to the copyright check column so I decided to wait. Then I realized that it was probably an error. Keivan.f^Talk 22:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f - Yeah, think the Earwig link broke the table formatting. I didn't actually type "Pending", just a generic message for when the table's freaking out. I'll have another look over tonight and then hopefully get through more (and pass) tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f - I've gone ahead and copyedited the article myself. It's quicker and easier that way, rather than me typing out everything and waiting for you to do it, I thought I'd just do it myself: feel free to undo anything you disagree with. Passing everything now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lead King Charles III and Queen Elizabeth II - I'd change this to Charles III and Elizabeth II.  Done As Princess of Wales, Diana undertook royal duties on behalf of Elizabeth II - Maybe As Princess of Wales, Diana undertook royal duties on behalf of the Queen to avoid repetition.  Done acrimonious collapse of her marriage - "acrimonious" is a bit florid. I'd change to something like helped her reputation survive the public collapse of her marriage.  Done Diana's death in a car crash in Paris in August 1997 led to extensive public mourning and global media attention - "Diana's death [...]" reads like we presume the reader already knows of her death. I'd introduce it first, lead with that. Something like In August 1997, Diana died in a car crash in Paris; the incident led to extensive public mourning and global media attention [...]. Feel free to reword how you like.  Done Early life had served as ladies-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - I'd just use "the Queen Mother", reads awkwardly with the full name and titles.  Done who was also a prospective Princess of Wales - Contextualise a bit: might include things like the arrangements between her and Frederick.  Done I don't think they ever got over it." - BrE, full stop goes after the quotation marks.  Done the Queen's sons Prince Andrew and Prince Edward - I'd add a colon after "sons". Additionally, you varyingly have "Princes William and Harry" in the lead but "Prince Andrew and Prince Edward" here. I'd pick one style consistently.  Done Personal life Diana first met the Prince of Wales (later Charles III), Elizabeth II's eldest son and heir apparent - Hm. You refer to "the Prince of Wales" but also to "Elizabeth II". You'd think either just names (with the titles) or just titles, so "Prince Charles, Elizabeth II's eldest son" or "the Prince of Wales, the Queen's eldest son". Additionally, the link placement's a bit weird. Suggest: Diana first met the Prince of Wales, the Queen's eldest son and heir apparent [...].  Done I used the suggested wording, but de-linked the Queen's name. It has already been linked in an earlier section and we link each page only once in the body of an article as far as I remember. her older sister, Sarah - link Lady Sarah McCorquodale? Her page is already linked in the section "Early life": "She grew up with three siblings: Sarah, Jane, and Charles." I think we should avoid over-linking. biographer Ingrid Seward - the biographer Ingrid Seward  Done incredibly lonely - is this a quote? If so, quotation marks. If not, "very lonely" or "extremely lonely" would do.  Done It was a quote so I added quotation marks. royal nuptials - WP:ELVAR, I'd just use "weddings".  Done Within a few years of the wedding, the Queen extended Diana visible tokens of membership in the royal family [...] - this paragraph can be merged into the one above, flows decently with the talk of clothes and such.  Done Subject of U.S. government surveillance Per MOS:USA, change to "US" as we use "UK" in this article.  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	On a more general point, I'm seeing a bit of bloat in the latter sections of the article. Some sections which could do with a heavy-handed trim: Anniversaries, commemorations, and auctions, Public image, Style icon, Diana in contemporary art and Portrayals. In Portrayals, I'm seeing a WP:SEAOFBLUE list of actresses begging for a IPC template. I'd suggest removing completely, but do as you wish. With Diana in contemporary art, I'm wondering why this is a section: the Queen and Charles have both also appeared in art and murals, but don't have their own sections.  Done I don't know about Charles but for Elizabeth II we have Personality and image of Elizabeth II which lists the portrayals, etc. A similar paragraph also exists for Mary of Teck. What I have done for now is merging those two sections ("Diana in contemporary art" and "Portrayals") and removing the information on which actress received which award. Do we need things like "In 2005, Martín Sastre premiered during the Venice Biennale the film Diana: The Rose Conspiracy. This fictional work starts with the world discovering Diana alive and enjoying a happy undercover new life in a dangerous cantegril on the outskirts of Montevideo. Shot at an Uruguayan slum using a Diana impersonator from São Paulo, the film was selected by the Italian Art Critics Association as one of the Venice Biennial's best works" and "In July 1999, Tracey Emin created a number of monoprint drawings featuring textual references about Diana's public and private life for Temple of Diana, a themed exhibition at The Blue Gallery, London. Works such as They Wanted You To Be Destroyed (1999) related to Diana's bulimia, while others included affectionate texts such as Love Was on Your Side and Diana's Dress with puffy sleeves. Another text praised her selflessness—The things you did to help other people, showing Diana in protective clothing walking through a minefield in Angola—while another referenced the conspiracy theories. Of her drawings, Emin maintained "They're quite sentimental ... and there's nothing cynical about it whatsoever""? I'd also suggest a big condensation here.  Done Removed in its entirety. Both sounded very trivial and promotional, along with the others that had been listed. Style icon is longer than the funeral section, and I think we could do without the last paragraph at least. I'm not seeing the relevance of particular exhibitions. "Iconic" is hagiographic.  Done "Iconic" has been replaced with "famous". I think you have already removed the last paragraph on exhibitions. The passage "Her iconic outfits include the "Black Sheep Sweater", a bright red jumper covered in knitted rows of sheep (all white but for one black sheep) by Warm & Wonderful, which she wore to several polo matches during her courtship and as Princess of Wales;[401][402] a cocktail dress by Christina Stambolian, known as the "Revenge dress", which she wore after Charles's admission of adultery;[403] and an evening gown by Victor Edelstein, known as the "Travolta dress", which she wore to a White House reception" can be condensed to something like Her famous outfits include the "Black Sheep Sweater";[401][402] the "Revenge dress", which she wore after Charles's admission of adultery;[403] and the "Travolta dress".", with the wikilinks expanding on those.  Done "She was also featured in the cover story for the July 1997 issue of Vanity Fair" is trivia.  Done Removed. Public image and Anniversaries, commemorations, and auctions could also undergo similar treatment: throughout, think "is this relevant to readers' understanding of her? Is this significant enough to be included in a summary and an overview?". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)  Done Condensed both sections. Removed trivial info, shortened the quotes, did some shuffling, etc. I tried to maintain parts that are concerned with the criticism of her character so that the neutrality of the article is not disrupted. Overall, I think everything is at an acceptable length now. Nice work. More coming. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some of the paywalled sources, like The Daily Telegraph and The New York Times need the |url-access=subscription parameter.  Done Alright, you're going to hate me for the next ones: The Washington Post is a paywalled site.  Done Remove "UK" from ref 273  Done You have both Daily Telegraph, The Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph in the ref section. Consistency is probably wanted.  Done Went with The Telegraph for consistency. Same goes for "The BBC" "BBC" and "BBC News". I'd go for "BBC News" for consistency with Charles's article.  Done Went with "BBC News". Use full ISBN-13s for the books. You can use this. A tedious job, but a necessary one. Sorry.  Done Despite MOS:LINKONCE, in refs it's either link all publishers/works or none. I know. Don't like it either, but I'd probably link every publisher in every instance in the refs.  Done I just de-linked them all. That's less time consuming and is not against the manual of style anyway. Some publishers are in "publisher" and some are in "work". I'd go for "work".  Done Went with "work". Can't use enough text formatting here, because this is the worst one: some news sources use the {{cite web}} template. You'll need to go through and change all those out. It's a horrible job to do, because you also need to change out some parameters. I'll help if I have the time.  Done For news websites such as the BBC, NBC, etc. I used "cite news" For newspapers such as The Guardian, The NY Times, The Telegraph, etc. I used "cite newspaper" For magazines such as Time, Vogue, etc. I used "cite magazine" For videos I used "cite AV media" For the royal family's website, governmental websites and websites for specific organizations I used "cite web"
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	What makes viola.bz reliable? What makes the source for ref 215 reliable? What makes HIV Aware reliable? What makes Biography Online reliable? What makes Learning to Give reliable? What makes Attitude reliable? What makes 'American Ancestors reliable? What makes British Pavilion in Venice reliable? What makes ssense reliable?  Done The ones that were not reliable have been removed. Ref 215 is the website of the charity Chester Childbirth Appeal of which Diana was president. It is used to show the dates during which she was associated with the organization. Attitude is included along with the BBC as the main source because the publication had honored Diana with a legacy award in 2017. American Ancestors is the website of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, the oldest of its kind in the U.S. The British Pavilion in Venice is a section featured in the website of the British Council. Doesn't seem unreliable to me. Again, really sorry for these. Take as much time as you need to fix them, because I know from experience working on big hodge-podge articles like Charles III and Liz Truss that fixing hundreds of news and web refs takes a lot of time and is tedious and fiddly to do. This article will be a melting pot of different editor's ref styles, and I don't envy the guy that has to straighten them out. Once this is done, that'll be the hard bit over. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Just wanted to let you know that I'm aware of them. Will start working on these issues by Friday. Keivan.fTalk 04:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Everything looks good now, thanks for your patience with them. Some more comments re sources: She did not perform well academically, failing her O-levels twice - needs a ref.  Done In the second paragraph of Engagement and wedding, refs 21 and 24 are the wrong way round.  Done (I think you meant 21 and 26?) After she became Princess of Wales, Diana automatically acquired rank as the third-highest female in the British order of precedence (after the Queen and the Queen Mother), and was fifth or sixth in the orders of precedence of her other realms, following the Queen, the relevant viceroy, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Queen Mother, and the Prince of Wales - ref needed.  Done removed for now until a suitable source is found. equivalent to £36,700 in 2021 needs a ref, but while you're at it, you could update it using the BoE inflation calculator. (equivalent to £34 million in 2021) same as above. Both these use "Template:Inflation", thus the amount and year generated are automatic. I can remove them altogether since the original amounts are sourced. Also, it is not really possible to use the BoE inflation calculator because it does not generate a unique URL. Point taken re inflation template: whilst not generating a unique URL, you can still cite the BoE inflation calculator. For example, FA Edward Dando cites this website which hasn't got the values entered. Doesn't matter though, if the template is correct. Spotchecks Numbers chosen at random. Based on this revision of the page. 1 - Y 7 - Y 31 - Y but the phrasing is very similar; reword. 68 - N: has "The Glums" but doesn't say why the nickname's used. This source could probably be used instead.  Done 181 - Y 197 - Y 219 - Y 224 - Y, looking at the other source to confirm 1987 234 - Y 250 - Y 293 - Y, along with the other refs 308 - Y 346 - Y: decent, along with the others 375 - Y 480 - Y 488 - Y 494 - Y, along with the other ref
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Per Earwig, reword the following phrases: Diana Frances Spencer was born on 1 July 1961 at Park House, Sandringham, Norfolk. She was the  Done talent for music as an accomplished pianist  Done Anne Hyde married the future James II  Done she continued to be regarded as a member of the royal family  Done promote the American Red Cross landmines campaign. From 7 to 10 August  Done assistant and lived for a short period at Clarence House, which was the home of the Queen Mother. She then lived at Buckingham Palace until the wedding  Done She made her first public appearance with Prince Charles in a charity ball in March 1981 at Goldsmiths' Hall, where she met Princess Grace of Monaco  Done
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing that I know of Diana's life not adequately mentioned.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	My view that it could still be stripped down a bit more, but that's my opinion and not MoS policy, and this is GAN not FAC anyway. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	For an article on this subject, good to see it's not written as mistily-eyed as it could be. Both viewpoints are nicely evenly-covered. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars. Text doesn't change much except from the results of the GA suggestions.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:British coin 25p (1981) reverse.jpg - why is this non-free image here when not even mentioned in the text? Can't see how this is justified. File:Diana, Princess of Wales.jpg - sceptical that the image was taken by the guy who uploaded it onto Commons, as it doesn't even have the date or year it was taken, and the original upload page looks really bare and a bit dodgy. The uploader doesn't have the best track record for image licensing either. File:Princess Diana Sri Chinmoy.jpg - no proof that photos from the Sri Chinmoy Center are free to use. Everything else looks decent to me. If the above images are removed, there'll be quite a few stretches of imageless test: you could move some of the existing images around to make up for that.  Done All removed. The first two were replaced by a stamp which shows them as a newly engaged couple and an image of Kensington Palace. We simply don't have a suitable image from her post-divorce era, other than the ones that were taken in the U.S. in 1997, one of which is already in use the infobox. And the date of images and the corresponding texts should match chronologically, thus I cannot just shuffle images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images in Early life? I'd add something, maybe a photo of Althorp.  Done Three images use fixed pixel size: the one with her, Charles and the Reagans and both the images for the Spencer and paternal coats of arms. Use the "upright" parameter instead to resize images, but in the case of the Reagans image, you can probably just leave it at thumb size.  Done Took it out for their image with the Reagans. Cannot do it with the two coats of arms. Adding "thumb" automatically creates a frame for captions, which are not needed in this instance as the description is provided within the "coat of arms" template. Also, adding "upright" alone without "thumb" results in out-of-proportionally big images. Forgot about the frame, my mistake. Captions You use "Diana" and "Charles" in some, but "the Princess of Wales" and "the Prince of Wales" in others.  Done Went with their first names for consistency. US First Lady Hillary Clinton -> The US first lady, Hillary Clinton: avoids false title and stays in line with MOS:JOB.  Done Ref 287 goes to Google Maps: really not needed at all.  Done Memorial in Harrods Department Store to Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed - can be shortened to just "Diana" and "Fayed".  Done The English text on souvenir sheets issued reads "Diana, Princess of Wales The Princess that [sic] captured people's hearts (1961–1997)". - can probably be removed.  Done
	7. Overall assessment.

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2023

There is a grammatical error for Diana, Princess of Wales. In the privacy and legal issues section. Spritejhope (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I scanned and didn't find anything. Perhaps if you could copy the offending text here.... HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I changed "Diana lawyers..." to "Diana's lawyers...". Kiwipete (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit to "‎Titles, styles, honours and arms:"

In response to the 08:50, 19 November 2023‎ revert by user @DrKay - please reconsider. The current text in the article does not accurately reflect her actual title at time of death as it was revised by the Palace in 1996 upon her divorce. Source: https://www.royal.uk/diana-princess-wales

If there was a particular part of my edit you found excessive I can edit it. But it should be accurate and it is not currently. SassyMay (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

ETA - thank you @DrKay for reinstating the correct title. Curious though why you didn't also keep the source reference? Isn't it better to have citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SassyMay (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)