Talk:Princess Charlotte of Prussia/GA2

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review, but I may not get through the full article right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping in! There's no hurry, take your time.  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Through her mother Victoria, Princess Royal, Charlotte was the eldest granddaughter of Queen Victoria and Albert, Prince Consort." Important, but perhaps you could specify that it's Victoria of England (or UK and the Commonwealth, or whatever).
 * Yes, I acknowledge it's a bit of a clunky sentence (there are a lot of important details to convey). How about this? "Through her mother Victoria, Princess Royal, Charlotte was the eldest granddaughter of the British monarch Queen Victoria and her consort Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha."  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, good! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "ascended the Prussian throne" Should that be ascended to the Prussian throne?
 * ✅  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling a little with the "idealised memory" claim (grammatically). I've had a play, but I'm still not completely happy with it. Can you think of some other way to phrase it?
 * Yes, I could a stab at it. How's this? "The historian John C. G. Röhl posits that in Vicky's view, her eldest three children "could never live up to the idealised memory of the two dead princes".  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried something like that while I was fiddling, but it doesn't quite work; presumably they were not "idealised" memories according to Vicky herself. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. I simplified the sentence somewhat to: "The historian John C. G. Röhl posits that Vicky's eldest three children "could never live up to the idealised memory of the two dead princes". How does that look?  Ruby  2010/  2013  00:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you link Henry at the first mention?
 * ✅  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Charlotte stayed with her ailing father near the end" "Near the end" is a little colloquial/euphemistic.
 * Changed to "during this period".  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Do we know the name of the person she was accused of having an affair with?
 * We do, but he does not have an article on the English or German WPs. The name is Karl-August Freiherr Roeder von Diersburg (his rank is similar to a baron). Do you think I should include his name?  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think his name/rank is important, even if he himself is not notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, added mentions of his name and rank.  Ruby  2010/  2013  00:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Could we link Prince Henry XXX of Reuss at first mention? (Or is he not notable?)
 * As far as I can tell, he's not notable. But I've now linked part of his title to his family's page to aid readers.  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Gotta dash; back shortly. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

No complaints on the sourcing, but I note that the information about the images is a little lacking. I'm fairly confident that they're all PD, but some more detailed information about them wouldn't go amiss. Might there be some details about them in one or more of the books you cite?
 * I managed to find information for one of the images through one of my books, but am having trouble with the others (it appears many of them were taken from a website). Do you know of any good resources for researching historical images? It might help if I decide to bring this article to FA eventually. Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a bloody pain. Technically speaking, to get a good idea of US copyright, we need to know about first publication date. I'm happy (for GAC purposes) that everything here is PD, but you're definitely going to need to do some more work before a FAC. One option would be trying to contact the author of the website they're taken from; he or she may be happy to help you work out the provenance of the images. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, that's what I was afraid of. I'll take your suggestion to contact the site author under advisement.  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In all, this is (at first look!) a great article, and very close to GA status. You should be proud of it. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and please double-check my edits. I'll aim to have another look-through the article soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for picking this review up! Your copyedits looked great. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions for improvement.  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to promote at this time- great work. It's fantastic to see a high-quality article on a figure of this sort. You should be very happy with it! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)