Talk:Prince William, Duke of Gloucester

Fair use rationale for Image:QuAn Arms.png

Image:QuAn Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale for this article's usage to the image's description page. Others are welcome to improve upon it. —Adavidb 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

English and Scottish prince?

William, Duke of Gloucester is in categories English and British princes and Scottish princes. Was he created prince of England and Scotland? He surely didn't become prince of England and Scotland on birth, since he was neither son nor a male-line grandson of English/Scottish monarch. And what about his title Duke of Gloucester? Was he really Duke of Gloucester? Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody responded in two days, so I'll remove him from those categories. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He was not an English prince, but was Duke of Gluocester. He would be "HRH Prince William of Denmark and Norway, The duke of Gluocester"Chamika1990 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article appears to be stable.

6. 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):

   Images complies to requirements and are properly captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• With Lewis militarily-minded Gloucester operated his own miniature army. - This sentence requires punctuation; a comma after Lewis.

Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikilinks that do not go anywhere should be removed at this stage.

Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikilinks should only be made on the first mention, and not repeated.

But surely the links in the 'Death' section should be kept? According to Wikipedia:Linking, 'In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:

where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first.'

I'm familiar with the exceptions. As it's just one, you can leave it there. There are articles which are at least three times longer. That would be a long way from the first. -- S Masters (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. With that in mind, I've removed the double links. Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• As part of his treatment, Gloucester went outside every day in his carriage, to maximise his exposure to the 'pure air' of the gravel pits. - "Pure air" should have double quotation marks, not single. Same with "amazed", etc. further down.

I changed them. But according to the Oxford A-Z of Grammar & Punctuation by John Seely, 'there is no fixed rule about whether to use single or double inverted commas...Single inverted commas tend to be preferred in Britain'. This article is written in British English after all. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:Manual of Style/Register#Quotation marks. -- S Masters (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Numbers greater than nine should be written in numerical form as per WP:MOS.

Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why are the parts about the arms in italics? Please see WP:ITALICS.

Summary: There are just a few small issues that need to be fixed before a decision can be made regarding this article. I will allow up to seven days for these to be resolved.

Regarding the last comment, I can say that the description of arms is always in italics. Perhaps it has got something to do with the rules of heraldry but I am not sure. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the page on heraldry and it doesn't have much italics on it. Further, I checked the Arms section for Prince Charles and no italics are used. -- S Masters (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

James II of England, a featured article, has italics in its arms section. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As I can't find any official policies on this, I will accept your argument on good faith. -- S Masters (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SMasters. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jack1755 for fixing all the issues. As there are no issues outstanding, I'm satisfied that the article now meets all the requirements for a Good Article. As such, I am happy to pass it for GA status.

Lead image

My edit summaries were detailed enough to merit an explanation better than "no it isn't". Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The 1698 Kneller is the highest resolution image on commons. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Gloucester

An IP editor recently removed all references that the article made to the subject as simply "Gloucester", using what the associated edit descriptions suggest as original research for the reasons. Dukes are named after places, and while I agree that use of just the place name seems overly familiar and informal for an encylopedia article, their removal is not properly because "people aren't places". As shown in this style guide, particularly for the lower titles of marquess and earl, the people holding the title are/were referred to informally as simply the place, by those most familiar with them. —ADavidB 02:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Non encyclopedic sentence

As of Nov 29 2019 11am New York time article contains the following sentence" Corporal punishment was usual at the time, and such treatment would not have been considered harsh."

That is not encyclopedic. It might be in an article on what was and what wasn't considered harsh in some bygone era. Its intent (a very immoral intent) is to APOLOGIZE and EXCUSE the conduct described in the preceding sentences. It would be like having, in an article on George Washington, "Washington was guilty of slave-owning" to be followed by the sentence "But really, so were a lot of people in Virginia at that time, all of whom would be considered 'normal' by the standards of the day. Slave-owning wasn't considered immoral in the Virginia of this time". What was and wasn't considered moral in some bygone age is not encyclopedically relevant. This child was brutally beaten, full stop, end of story. Washington owned slaves, full stop, end of story. We readers are perfectly capable of deciding what to think of these facts without being told by some snob what people of the time thought of these facts. Moral relativity is anti-encyclopedic. It's not Wikipedia's job to plead excuses for past conduct that OBJECTIVELY fails to meet OBJECTIVE (not socially-evolving) standards of morality because the people who perpetrated them did some other things in their lives that were not as bad as their most barbarous conduct.74.64.104.99 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I don't think I've ever read a more anti-historical post than that. Context and moral relativism are pillars of the historical sciences. There is no such thing as "objective moral standards." They should always be taken into consideration and are encyclopedic as such. Sira Aspera (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Context is important. Such as the context, say, of how many people in Virginia owned slaves (very few), the proportion of people who didn't (very many), whether at the time there was an anti-slavery movement (there was), who was Washington (a wealthy landowning aristocrat), how many people had political power or even a vote (a tiny minority). DrKay (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)