I would like to make a point about the aversion to using Wikipedia as a source. It is true that Wikipedia is "unreliable" as an academic source, although even that is changing. This wikia, however is not an academic research paper or even a resource for academicians, it is a fan site and needs to consider what is most useful to its audience, i.e. fans. Wikipedia provides a convenient and freely available compilation of information which then can provide the basis for further research if desired, however in most cases fans just want some additional background information.
As typically used here, insisting on primary or secondary resources is not an improvement for at least two key reasons:
For example, if the topic were George V, going to the Wikipedia page, one finds on the first line his full name, date he was born, date he died, and in the first paragraph, all of his titles, when he ruled, who he succeeded, who he married, etc.
Using primary sources, one would have to look up each primary record, such as birth document, christening document, marriage document and death document. Further those types of primary documents are not generally freely available online. They are available through, for instance LDS family research centers, but one has to physically go some place to access it, or pay to access the information online through a service like ancestry.com. And this is just one piece of the information to assemble, completely different sources would be required for historical events occurring under his reign, for example.
Thus insistence on primary and secondary sources which most people will have neither the means or desire to access is no improvement over tertiary sources like wikipedia despite the concern of reliability.
I would therefore respectfully submit that this policy (informal as it may be) be reconsidered.