Talk:Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Will be reviewing this article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. History6042 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful GA nomination. History6042 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hello History6042, thank you for reviewing this nomination. I was wondering where you think the sourcing could be improved in order to pass that section of the review?--Llewee (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last two paragraphs of the lead have no inline citations. History6042 (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042 I didn't think that leads need citations. They are based on the article. Llewee (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only some parts do, for example in the sentence "Charles Edward died in poverty in Coburg, which by then was part of Bavaria in West Germany, in 1954.". This is because it is the only time the dying of poverty is mentioned. History6042 (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section on his later life mentions that he "spent the last years of his life in seclusion, forced into poverty". Llewee (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it never states he died in poverty. Also, this is just one, there are more. they include https://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/christenings.htm#Christenings, which is not a reliable source. History6042 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken out the comment about him dying in poverty. I can't see where that link is used. Could you please give me the source number?Llewee (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten rid of the bulk of questionable sources. Please tell me if their is anything else.Llewee (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the questionable sources. Also that source was actually form a completely different page, my mistake. History6042 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]