Portrait of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 8, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on January 19, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Charlotte Higgins compared the depiction of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge in Paul Emsley's portrait to a character in The Twilight Saga?

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles British Royalty Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

I will review this for GA within the next 72h, hopefully. There's only one pre-GA quick comment: WP:LEAD recommends that the lead has no unique information, and thus needs no references. While this is only a recommendation, I think the lead here may benefit from a relevant rewrite. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portrait of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus ( talk · contribs) 08:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   1) missing word: " Emsley suggested that beginning he" 2) add art to lovers in "art critics and lovers".

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   1) See my concerns about lead on the talk page. 2) please add an ilink to "Sloaney", I don't know what this reference is to. 3) "Andrew Eaton-Lewis" may be notable, please add a red link, or explain here why he is not notable. Same for Joseph McKenzie.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   I added tags to sentences that need referencing/clarifying.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Mostly. Please explain why is the comment by Fisun Güner reliable enough for inclusion.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I am not sure about this. I think there was much more coverage than is being discussed. I would like to hear what were the criteria for selecting the pieces used in the article. For just one example, the NYT review mentions more criticism ( [1], by people who seem notable yet are not cited here.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Discusses both critics and supporters.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Portrait of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.jpg needs a proper fair use rationale, not just a single template. See for example File:DREAMHUB, Seoul, South Korea.jpg for what I mean. As a side note, irrelevant to GA status, it would be nice if someone asked the copyright holder (museum? artist?) to consider free licensing so that could be used on other language Wikipedias.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I think I'll withdraw this one if its OK.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply

No problem with me, through I am not sure what I have to do unless I just fail it? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I am going to fail this due to issues not having been addressed, and no editor declaring they need more time. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply