Jump to content

Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hattrick (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 6 January 2019 (→Grammatical Error: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
August 3, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
WikiProject iconWomen in Red: Women in the world (2017)
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the Women in the world contest hosted by the Women in Red project in November 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

Move moratorium proposal — Adopted through January 5, 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Move moratorium imposed, back dated from July 6, 2018, through January 5, 2019. There is a narrow consensus in favor of granting the moratorium, very narrow in fact, but sufficient I believe. I think the community as a whole is satisfied with the current location of the article and I certainly don't see any serious attempt being made to go back to Meghan Markle and this moratorium should stop any trivial or sore loser discussions. If something truly important happens in the next six months, such as the death of the Queen, Prince Charles or both that would change her status/name/title, editors can and should ignore this moratorium and introduce the move request as appropriate. I have backdated the moratorium to the date of the latest page move. Safiel (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Prince Harry, this article also has a lot of controversies on the title. I am here to propose regardless the outcome of the 18 June 2018 move request, a moratorium on move requests should be implemented on this article for six months. --B dash (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, just noticed that User:B dash actually proposed a move to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" so obviously isn't trying to delay anything. But I'm not going to change my vote. Eventually the balance of reliable sources in favour of the married name will tip (if it hasn't already) and the article should be moved then, not after some arbitrarily-set timescale. Opera hat (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is "her married name"? HRH Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex, comparable with Princess Arthur of Connaught (HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife, 1913-1959), whose article is named Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife, and consider Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy. Qexigator (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant here. If people want to argue over what her married name is, they should be allowed to do so. This proposal is to ban any discussion at all for the next six months, and that's what I'm opposing. Opera hat (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2018 (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.

Bumping thread for 170 days. Safiel (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Up-to-date

May I praise this article for showing how up-to-date Wikipedia is. The news of the pregnancy of Meghan Markel was only announced in the news today (October 15 2018) and already it is in the article. What is more, by going to this page one can learn more than was announced in the news. Keep up the good work, Wikipedians. Vorbee (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks but if there is anything here not found elsewhere first (and in very good sources) something is really wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's remarkable is that the information was added only a minute or so after the announcement was made. Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have found that for most notable topics under the sun, there seems to be a swarm of (usually one-time) WP editors who swoop in and update the relevant article within SECONDS of the first news report. It is so consistent, that I can usually check article history to determine when exactly the news first broke. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But shouldn't we atleast put in which month the baby is expected in? I am bone123 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text needs update

Someone needs to find the sources and update from future tense to past tense the Australia/nz/togo trip. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @Surtsicna: since you have nominated this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally got to it, Alanscottwalker. I am surprised the article has not been reviewed yet. Surely judging biographies of royal women should be as popular as judging the women themselves... Surtsicna (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone also put in which month the baby is expected in I am bone123 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure we have that information. Surtsicna (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Race so important?

Hi, it might be due to me being German, but to me, it feels strange, that literally the second sentence tells me that she is of mixed race. Is that really so important, as to put it in the preamble of the article? Or am I just overly sensitive on the topic? --T3rminat0r (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@T3rminat0r: Important for Wikipedia is what is important for the majority of reliable sources. Since they focus on her heritage pretty heavily, it needs to be prominently featured here as well. German sources tend to focus far less on this aspect as far as I can tell (being German myself), so the de-wiki article only mentions it once (but is far shorter as well). Regards SoWhy 20:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously important to many in the US. In the UK, it's of minimal interest except to far right sources. I very much doubt whether "the majority of reliable sources", globally, that discuss her, make any mention of it, and my suspicion is that we're giving undue weight to those sources that do mention it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This article passes its GA nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I'm going to do this review. COI disclaimer: I'm a fan of suits, but I think that's okay --DannyS712 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Review

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

  •  Partly done The "Titles, styles, and arms" has a lot of whitespace when the coat of arms is collapsed. Can we reduce that?
  • Can we combine eliminate the collapse of the arms, and combine the two sections. It looks really bare, with just 1.5 lines of text, and then the centered caption
  • There was an extensive discussion about the coats of arms and they way they are explained, resulting in the consensus to keep them collapsed. I am afraid I cannot point you to this discussion without spending some time looking it up, but if you check related articles, you will notice it is the standard. We could remove the collapsing, but I am sure doing so would mean stepping on a lot of toes. Surtsicna (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The second image ("Markle at a panel discussion of Suits, Paley Center for Media, 2013") - the right side of the image isn't the best quality, with an odd cutoff or something. I'm not a photography person, but can this be improved at all?
  •  Done Lede - Sussex on her marriage to - on? shouldn't this be "upon"
  •  Done As of 2017, her mother - update
  •  Done that her "dad is Caucasian and my mom is African American. I'm half black - pronoun switch. Introduce with 'that "my..."' or something else
  •  Done a bachelor's degree and a double major in theater the bachelor's degree isn't separate from the double major, maybe "degree, double majoring in" instead
Acting career (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Markle deftly and "actively re-positioned" her character from ingenue to "the show's moral conscience" and gave viewers

  •  Done "deftly" isn't in the article, likely editorializing, suggest removal
  •  Done "ingenue" -> "ingénue"
Personal life (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done They married in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, - misuse of the verb "to marry", see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marry. It should be "They were married"
  •  Request withdrawn His grandmother Elizabeth II is queen - need commas -> "grandmother, Elizabeth II, is"
  •  Done The statement described sexism, racism and defamatory stories directed at her. what does this have to do with anything? unneeded
@Surtsicna: Then please do so --DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even combined, In November, the British royal family's communications secretary released an official statement that addressed sexism, racism, and defamatory stories directed toward Markle., it still makes little sense. How is this connected to the previous sentence (The couple met on a blind date set up by a mutual friend.) or the next (In September 2017, they appeared together in public for the first time an official royal engagement at the Invictus Games in Toronto, Canada.)?
I have rearranged the paragraph so that the sentence comes after He was then fifth in line to the British throne; his grandmother Elizabeth II is queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms, as well as Head of the Commonwealth. It then ties into Harry's background (since it mentions the British royal family for the first time). The entire paragraph is a chronology of their relationship. This statement was the official confirmation of their relationship. Besides, Wikipedia should surely report that the coverage of their relationship was so nasty that it warranted an intervention by the Palace. Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The ring Harry gave Markle was made by Cleave & Company Ltd, and consists of a large central diamond from Botswana, with two smaller diamonds from the jewellery collection of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. unneeded trivia

I'm going to stop here. This article needs a general copy edit before I proceed. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and public life (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  •  Done Members of the royal family are politically neutral by convention, and Dickie Arbiter, former press secretary to Prince Charles, expects the Duchess to follow suit. - need a citation for specific claim
  •  Partly done Markle joined Harry for the first time during an official public appearance after their engagement at a walkabout in Nottingham on December 1, 2017,[65][66] in connection with World AIDS Day.[67] - awkward phrasing, especially with the multiple citations in the middle
  • Now its Markle made her first official public appearance with Harry after the engagement at a World AIDS Day walkabout in Nottingham on December 1, 2017. This is better, but still hard to parse. What about "After the engagement, Markle's first official public appearance with Harry was at a World AIDS day..."?
  • Markle joined Harry for the first time during an official public appearance after their engagement at a walkabout in Nottingham on December 1, 2017, in connection with World AIDS Day. In early 2018, she accompanied him on his engagements in Brixton, Cardiff, Goldsmiths' Hall, and Edinburgh. On February 28, the couple attended an official engagement at the first annual forum of The Royal Foundation, "Making a Difference Together". She became the foundation's fourth patron, alongside Harry and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, after her marriage into the royal family. Markle and Harry marked International Women's Day by attending an event in Birmingham hosted by the Stemettes. Along with the Queen and other members of the royal family, she attended the Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey on March 12. The couple made their first visit to Northern Ireland on March 23. Markle carried out a total of 26 public engagements prior to the wedding.
    The Duchess's first official engagement after the wedding came on May 22 when she and her husband celebrated the charity work of his father, Prince Charles. Her first trip abroad at the request of the British government was to Dublin, Ireland, in July. According to a review in The Irish Times, her visit became a unique national obsession.
    The Duchess takes part in her husband's work as youth ambassador to the Commonwealth, which includes overseas tours. The first such trip was to Australia, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand in October 2018. Despite the low support for the monarchy in Australia, the couple were greeted by crowds in Sydney, and the announcement of the Duchess's pregnancy hours after their arrival was received enthusiastically by the public and media.     - this is a lot of detail, that I don't think is warranted. Most of the first paragraph is trivia, and the last sentence of the second is likewise not encyclopedic in nature
  • I agree that the first paragraph contains a lot of fluff. We do not need to chronicle every step she makes, and the article should not sound like a diary. That said, I am not sure what exactly to remove and what to retain. Feel free to remove whatever you consider trivial. Could you please explain why you do not consider the last sentence encyclopedic? It summarizes the reports of two reputable sources, and adds context that ensures the paragraph does not sound like a diary entry (they went here, then there, then here...). Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its still a bit long. Can we trim it some more?
Fashion and style (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The lines, based on her personal style, and that of her Suits character, described as "aspirational girl next door", quickly sold out. - I'm a big fan of commas, but this is a lot, making it hard to parse
  •  Done Markle cited Emmanuelle Alt as her style inspiration in 2017. - what about her inspiration in 2016? who was it in 2018? Suggest: "In 2017, Markle..."
  •  Request withdrawn the Duchess appeared in a Karen Gee dress - most of the article, and the section, refers to her as Markle
Charity work (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ssuggest shortening a bit, the 4th paragraph is fine, but the first 3 are really specific. Maybe just touch on the highlights? Eg "In 2016, after a trip to India focused on raising awareness for women's issues, Markle wrote an op-ed for Time magazine concerning stigmatization of women in regard to menstrual health." We don't need to know about every trip she made...

  • Its still a bit long. Can we cut it down some more?
  • That has been pretty much announced by the Palace via the official website. The only thing I would change about that sentence is replace "likely to" with "will". The fourth paragraph is a recent addition; I've removed the fluff. Surtsicna (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Request withdrawn On her mother's side, the Duchess of Sussex - she is referred to as Markle in the rest of the article
  •  Request withdrawn Filmography section - given that a lot of this is covered in the prose, could we have this be a separate article and just a short summary here? The tables stand out, in part because they are narrow, and in part because its just a list (like other filmography sections, but see Sean Connery#Filmography for precedent (you would want to add a summary though)
  • Moving the prose so far down would not work because the chronology would become messed up. Her acting career should not come after her royal marriage. I do not think putting the tables side by side is possible, but I am no expert. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: please see the rest of the review. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thanks for your comments, DannyS712. I have addressed all the issues. The article was copy-edited by Twofingered Typist on 3 August 2018. Surtsicna (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: Can you continue the copy edit beyond where I stopped. Its not very efficient for my notes to focus on grammatical or spelling errors, etc, but they do need to get fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with all of your grammar and spelling concerns. For example, "on marriage" is fine, though I have replaced it with "upon marriage". There should be no commas before and after the name of Harry's grandmother because she is not his only grandmother. I do believe Twofingered Typist did a good job copy-editing the article. Surtsicna (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: That copy edit was months ago. a lot has changed. My point is just that it should be copy edited beyond the last note I gave. We may disagree on "on marriage" or commas, so I'm just requesting that you copy edit the rest of the article so I don't have to point out every time I think something is wrong, because I'll know that it was an intentional choice. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Twofingered Typist informed me today that she or he copy-edited the article again. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: Please see the updated notes DannyS712 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: Any update? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a message to you on 7 January. It seems you did not see it. Surtsicna (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: I saw that edit on my watchlist, but there is still other stuff left I thought you were still working on it. In the future please ping me when you have responded to all of the remaining notes, so that I know to check back. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: Please see update review --DannyS712 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: I think its just the one charity work section left. Fix that, then I'll reread it all, and hopefully pass it! --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: I'm going to reread it soon --DannyS712 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (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.

Grammatical Error

Under Charity Work, "ran by" is incorrect in "Markle became interested in the Hubb Community Kitchen, ran by the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire." It should be "run by" or, better, "operated by." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattrick (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Error

Under Charity Work, "ran by" is incorrect in "Markle became interested in the Hubb Community Kitchen, ran by the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire." It should be "run by" or, better, "operated by." Hattrick (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex&oldid=877109592"