Talk:The Prince's Charities

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.
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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Low‑importance

	The Prince's Charities is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Could someone explain which sentences needs extra references? Most of the material seems covered by the existng references. TamaraStaples (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph, for one. The references to the Guardian Jobs website go to dead pages, so need to be replaced, and they were presumably just parrotting information from the PoW and TPC websites anyway. Independent 3rd party sources are needed for proper references, not single sources which are the subject of the article.Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 19:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph is now rewritten and the Guardian reference changed. What else needs additional references, because I don't think that any of it is controversial?TamaraStaples (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial isn't the issue, Tamara. Verifiability is. It's looking good so far, but I still see some references to Guardian pages that will be dead links soon. You want to go for permanent links; books are preferable over websites. Good job on doing what you're doing! Don't get me wrong; I am not criticizing you and saying you're doing a bad job; my criticism is meant to be constructive. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 07:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, your comments are fine. Actually I have changed the guardian references so that they are to the print version, instead of to the online version which as you correctly say has expired. From what I have read newspaper articles are OK as references. It may not be very helpful for people outside the UK, but in England the Guardian past editions are available free at public libraries. I did look for alternative references but this is far too recent a topic to be in any books. Also, very little is written about the development of 'The Prince's Charities' apart from HRH's Charities Office. This ad. for additional senior staff for the charities office confirmed that firstly the office is still growing in terms of staff numbers, and secondly giving their view of what the Prince's Charities group is about. This info. is not available on either the PoW or Prince's Charitie sites. So this means that the guardian ad seems to me to be quite interesting and useful.TamaraStaples (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)