Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 1

Diana, Princess of Wales

This is _not_ a self nomination (Although I tweaked and did some minor work on it). I came across the article whilst looking for articles on Humantarian workers to put in the Humantarian category after I started Geraldine Cox (I hope you get that). Anyway, This article looks comprehensive, has the depth of her life and so forth. I thought it make be a good FA. I think that this FAC is simply straight foward, no explanation needed. Squash 07:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but I'd like to see a bit more of her humanitarian work mentioned in the lead section. Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a bad article overall, I even contributed the bit about the underpass being an accident black spot, but I am not in favour of it being a featured article unless 2 issues are addressed. Firstly, get rid of the astrological stuff at the end. Secondly, it claims that Prince Harry had a stillborn twin, this may be true but it's the first I've heard of this, this needs to be either sourced or removed.

PatGallacher 13:33, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

• • Astrology gone - Done (It was already removed)
  • Yes. That part I never heard of either: "On the same day as Prince Harry was born, the Princess gave birth to a stillborn baby girl, which led to the speculation that Prince Charles wanted a baby girl rather than a boy." is removed Squash 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object"On the same day as Prince Harry was born, the Princess gave birth to a stillborn baby girl, which led to the speculation that Prince Charles wanted a baby girl rather than a boy" this is complete rubbish! Solar eclipses aside there is far too much speculation and unproven "facts" Incidentally it was the late Queen Mother who found her at the bottom of the stairs not her mother-in-law! Half this page seems to be "servant's gossip" and idle speculation! Wikipedia and the Princess deserve better. Giano 14:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • All issues addressed. See above Squash 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These ridiculous statements are all still there - the page is garbage!Giano 21:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. A section about astrology? I don't think so. Seriously, this needs cleanup, NPOV checking and copy-editingPhils 18:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Astrology section gone - Done Squash 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Top image has no credits, others have "looks like fair use". Very dubious. 2) Article seems a bit disbalanced. We get more text about her death than her life, and almost nothing about her early life. She is listed as one of the most famous celebrities, but this is hardly discussed. 3) The lead section suddenly cuts off at "She is". 4) There are no references, although some links are given in the text. 5) In the "Legacy", we get some seemingly random bits of information, which are not all very relevant. Also, there is more on NBC showing tapes than about Diana's early life. 6) The article is full of non-qualified quotes and vagueness. "It has been suggested", "led to the speculation", "Perhaps". Tell us who said or wrote this, and where. Jeronimo 21:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Giano, the ridiculous statements aren't so much still there as they keep being again there. The astrology stuff has been lifted verbatim from Omen, where it was inserted 17 Jan (rendering a previously respectable stub ridiculous) by the same anon who then went on to insert it into Diana, Princess of Wales on 19 Jan. Since then it has been removed from "Diana" several times and each time promptly and sneakily reinserted by another IP. By a curious coincidence, perhaps amounting to an omen, these anons both have vandalism warnings on their talk pages. Something tells me (I can feel psychic powers coming on) that "Diana" hasn't seen the last of the astrology stuff! Bishonen | Talk 21:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object, if only because the page is a magnet for vandalism (check out the History tab). I know that's not "actionable", but it is part of the FA criteria that an article be "stable". Incidentally, I don't know whether to ascribe the reckless over-wikification to vandalism or to somebody's unfortunate idea of helping Wikipedia. Check out the crapload of links in the lead section alone: along with a small number of relevant links, these concepts are also linked: wife, mother, throne, marriage, death, car, accident, Paris, photograph, icon, and celebrity. All within in a few short sentences! (Go on, look at the articles they lead to, it's ridiculous.) Bishonen | Talk 09:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

Most of the problems listed above have now been fixed. Is there a way to re-nominate the article? (self-nom). Hic 17:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Hic, it says how at the top of WP:FAC. I'll take my best shot at doing it for you, but I warn you I may mess up! --Bishonen | Talk 18:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)