Talk:Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/GA1

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 16:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Llewee, I will be reviewing this article. I will hopefully be done with the review by the end of this week. Aintabli (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The lead is of appropriate length and doesn't get into excessive detail. The layout looks good. I haven't noticed any questionable terms.  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section): Yes.  
    b. (citations to reliable sources):  
    c. (OR):  
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):  
    b. (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Although Charles Edward had ties to the Nazis, I didn't notice any statement that could come out as not neutral.  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: No disruptive edits since the article's nomination.  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:  

(Criteria marked   are unassessed)

Images

edit
  • The first image, used within the infobox, [1] seems to not be in the public domain as it is not listed so by the person who published it on Flickr [2].
  • This [3] may as well be problematic per the copyright policy of the Royal Collection Trust at [4], which implies that it is not within the public domain.
  • I'm not sure if the documented copyright for [5] on Wikimedia Commons is truthful.

You may correct me if I am mistaken, though. Since pictures are plentiful in this article, these could be removed instead of a replacement. Llewee, ping me when done. Aintabli (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I don't often add photographs from third party sources to the commons myself and am not really a authority on copyright. I've changed the three images in question.--Llewee (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Aintabli (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit
  • Needs page number: "Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage". Burke's Peerage Limited. 31 December 1885. Retrieved 2017-12-31 – via Google Books.
I would also change the url to https://books.google.com/books?id=eA84XBiBeroC&pg=PApage number (Example: https://books.google.com/books?id=eA84XBiBeroC&pg=PA6) and maybe change the access date along the way.
Also, there's a duplicate of this reference. (The other links to a Google Docs.)