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

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

Hi, 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)

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

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 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.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section): Yes.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.: No disruptive edits since the article's nomination.
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.: No disruptive edits since the article's nomination.
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.: No disruptive edits since the article's nomination.
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Images
You may correct me if I am mistaken, though. Since pictures are plentiful in this article, these could be removed instead of a replacement. , ping me when done. Aintabli (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The first image, used within the infobox, seems to not be in the public domain as it is not listed so by the person who published it on Flickr.
 * This may as well be problematic per the copyright policy of the Royal Collection Trust at, which implies that it is not within the public domain.
 * I'm not sure if the documented copyright for on Wikimedia Commons is truthful.
 * 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)
 * Thank you. Aintabli (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)