Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles III/archive1

Charles III

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently overlong with much irrelevant information, some badly written sections, too many links, and on a vital article, being top-importance on 7 WikiProjects and 1 task force. See Wikipedia:Charles III for more details. Thanks, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to strongly support this -- full disclosure, I actually wanted to make the request myself, but for some bizarre process reasons only autoconfirmed accounts can do this. This page saw a huge spike it pageviews when C3 became king, and the article was in quite the shambles at the time. And it's not materially better since. As sure as eggs it'll see another such spike when he's crowned, there's even less excuse for it to be as bad then, as we know exactly when this'll be. Some extra eyeballs on this before then (or after, if it comes to that, there will be a third such peak eventually...) would be greatly appreciated, especially to help it get over the "non consensus to stop being just a B-class article" rolling resistance. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe the page is in such terrible shape. But, outsiders are (of course) free to look it over. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: PR is for editors to get suggestions on how to improve the article. Your opening statement suggests that you already know some areas that can be improved. Does this need to be open at this time? Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the PR 'locals' would be better able to determine whether it's useful, or Process-Correct than either Tim or I. But even if were to only strictly confine itself to the areas he mentions -- though I can't imagine why it would -- that itself would be useful input in confirmation. Especially given the countervailing "no consensus to change", "revisit in eight months" and "not in terrible shape" comments that appear to argue we needn't, shouldn't, and can't do anything with it at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: Hello - Apologies, the intention behind it was for the review to start after the results of an RfC on Charles's talkpage on changes to be made to the article. We nominated the article for review a bit earlier because we thought that it would take a while to get back to us on this - the reason was because we want the article substantially improved no later than 6 May (aka coronation day), and we feared if we started the process later it might not have been done in time, taking into account other factors such as the GA review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: Editors are less likely to review articles that are undergoing substantial changes. I would suggest withdrawing this, settling the changes to the article, then opening a new PR when editors are unsure about what changes should be made. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I won't withdraw it now, but I'll put it on hold. Cheers. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps you overestimate the amount of change the article actually occurring. Or underestimate the inertia to making them, 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There's been a burst of changes on this articles, I think more-or-less taking care of everything the "task force" had initially identified. Perhaps now would be a more opportune time for some previously uninvolved editor to take a look at it. Should anyone have the inclination and mental resources. 109.etc (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

2 days and no luck. @109.etc, what would you say to launching the nomination for GA now? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Closing note: Since this article has been nominated at GAN, I am closing this PR. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)