# Talk:Royal Foundation

The name of the charity starts with 'The', but is this correct? I really am not sure as it looks clumsy. See Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund where the 'The' is dropped from the article name. Both articles can't be named correctly. John a s (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:THE seems to imply that the The should be used if it is part of the official name, but it is not the best written guideline. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Royal Foundation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Together-2016":
From Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge: Samuelson, Kate (25 August 2017). "How Princes William and Harry Are Carrying on Causes Close to Princess Diana's Heart". Time magazine. Archived from the original on 7 June 2018. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
From Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex: Samuelson, Kate (25 August 2017). "How Princes William and Harry Are Carrying on Causes Close to Princess Diana's Heart". Time magazine. Archived from the original on 7 June 2018. Retrieved 24 May 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Royal Foundation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominators: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 09:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Keivan.f (talk · contribs) 16:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk · contribs) 16:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Given the ... star power ... of Harry and Meagan, can anything more be said about the circumstances under which they left the Foundation?
I have mentioned the fact that they set up their own organisation in 2020 after quitting the foundation the previous year.
"In the month prior to their wedding in April 2011, Prince William and Catherine set up a gift fund to allow well-wishers to donate money to charities they care about in lieu of gifts.[8] " Who is "they"? The royals or the givers?
Done.
There's a bit of a feel of a series of events jumbled together, usually leading with text like "In February 20xx," ...
"young and adolescent children" This feels awkward as most children are young. If not all.
Done.
"find support to avoid the increase of youth violence" They would be avoiding youth violence, not the increase.
Done.
"piloted an anti-knife crime resource in several primary schools across Nottingham" Meaning what?
Removed the phrase.
" with all of them in attendance. " Given the limited number of patrons, and the fact that they changed about then, I'd list them. Especially if Meagan was there, though they were not yet married, I believe.
Done.
"Invictus Games". To be frank, that's the only one of these I've heard of as a Yank, and associated of course with Harry. As far as I can see, the article doesn't make it clear if the games continued under the auspices of the Foundation when Harry left.
Consider whether you have complied with MOS:SERIAL.
Done.
"£16.4 million were spent on charitable activities, £12.1 million of which was for the Earthshot Prize." Should the "were" be "was" ENGVAR, I suspect.
Done.
The copyvio detector here is giving a rather high readout. I suspect a lot of that is due to your mentioning activities and going straight from the source. Try to paraphrase or use quotation marks.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I will ensure that they are duly addressed. MSincccc (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The current EARWIG score is just over 30%. I will continue to make further modifications to the article's text. Looking forward to your next set of comments. MSincccc (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
"Over 68,000 industry employees have since been trained to work against illegal wildlife trade.[28]" There's no clue as to what industry this might be.
Fixed.
"In March 2016, the taskforce led the signing of a declaration at Buckingham Palace to shut down illegal trafficking routes and increase information and research sharing, composed of 45 signatories globally.[29]" I think it's the "led the signing" which bothered me here. Also, what was composed of 45 signatories globally?
"In October 2018, it signed the Mansion House declaration," the last "it" previous to this was the film.
Fixed.
You are inconsistent as to whether you capitalise "Foundation" when standing alone (in multiple sections). I could see either way but you should be consistent. Similarly "P/prize" (Earthshot).
Fixed.
"including the WWF, Greenpeace, Oceana and Conservation International. The project was also set up to align with the United Nations's Sustainable Development Goals.[37] The prize is judged by an appointed council composed of 13 members including David Attenborough, Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, and Christiana Figueres." I gather there's still some inconsistency regarding serial commas. Please check throughout.
Fixed.
"on efforts to change the conversation of mental health" I might rephrase to a more formal tone. Similarly "to affect the conversation" somewhat later.
Fixed.
"across His Majesty's Armed Forces. " Well, this is 2017, so they weren't his majesty's yet. Suggest omitting the his Majesty's.
Fixed.
"59 percent of the 16 to 24-year-olds advocated for greater awareness on mental health issues" It's not clear what is meant there
Rephrased.
"Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry," Why the titles? You haven't used them much til now.
Replaced the titles with their names.
"FA cup" probably should be linked. Is this properly capped?\
Fixed.
"was provided by foundation," perhaps "the" foundation?
Fixed.
At least from what I gather from its article, the Invictus Games are no longer governed by the foundation. It should be made clearer when this ceased.
Done.
"composed of medical and psychological speakers," Odd phrasing?
Rephrased.
" Eight professionals from academia, science and the early years sector were announced as the centre's advisory group including Peter Fonagy, Eamon McCrory, Alain Gregoire, Trudi Seneviratne, Ed Vainker, Carey Oppenheim, Imran Hussain, and Beverley Barnett‑Jones.[88]" Well, then they don't include them, they are them, as you've named all eight.
Fixed.
" which aims to transform the issue of early childhood from one of scientific interest to one of the most strategically important topics of our time" I didn't realise early childhood was an issue. Can this be rephrased?
Rephrased.
Who published ref 56?
The Royal Foundation website. I have added their name now.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article. All your suggestions have been properly addressed. MSincccc (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Closing as successful. All good.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there any way the lead of the article can be expanded? It's particularly short for a Good Article, and leaves out a fair amount of interesting and notable details about the foundation described in the body. Cheers! Johnson524 18:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I will try to expand it as soon as possible. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)