Talk:Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- A few questions about some of the references
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Lacking information on his wife and marriage
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Some concerns with image licenses.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- General Comments:
- File:ErnstIIofSCG.jpg has no source information so it's impossible to verify that the image is indeed public domain - the key here is publication date, not creation date.
- Removed image - could not find any verification of date
- Removed image - could not find any verification of date
- Likewise for File:Alexandrina Duchess Saxe Coburg, 1842.jpg
- Wiki commons states it was painted by Winterhalter in 1842, which would have been the year she was married.
- Wiki commons states it was painted by Winterhalter in 1842, which would have been the year she was married.
- File:1818 Ernst-09.jpg gives where someone got it, but there is no information on publication date or who created it, so like the above, you need to be able to verify that it's PD.
- It states the photograph was taken in 1880, which allows it to be in the public domain.
- It states the photograph was taken in 1880, which allows it to be in the public domain.
- File:Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.png the source here for this file doesn't work so again, we need to have some idea of publication history to know that it's truly public domain.
- Replaced image with new one - wiki commons states the new image is from 1888.
- Replaced image with new one - wiki commons states the new image is from 1888.
- And likewise for File:Wappen Sachsen Coburg Gotha.png
- Considering the author Hugo Gerhard Ströhl died in 1919, his work should be allowed in the public domain.
- Considering the author Hugo Gerhard Ströhl died in 1919, his work should be allowed in the public domain.
- How is the stepfather or Ernest - von Hanstein, a commoner if he's got a title (Count)?
- Von Hanstein was not created a count until his marriage to Louise. This may not be clear in the article however - Fixed it.
- Von Hanstein was not created a count until his marriage to Louise. This may not be clear in the article however - Fixed it.
- Current ref 1 - Lundy - needs a publisher. And what makes this a reliable source?
- Lundy is a source used frequently throughout Wikipedia. It is an independently-run website that sources all of its information. The parts I took from the website were sourced with C. Arnold McNaughton, The Book of Kings: A Royal Genealogy, in 3 volumes (London, U.K.: Garnstone Press, 1973), volume 1, page 276. Hereinafter cited as The Book of Kings. I do not possess this work, so have used the website to source it for me.
- On further review, I removed the Lundy citations, and replaced one of them with Encyclopædia Britannica.
- On further review, I removed the Lundy citations, and replaced one of them with Encyclopædia Britannica.
- What makes http://www.heraldica.org a reliable source?
- Heraldica.org is another independently-run website that is used throughout Wikipedia. Francois Velde has written works (like [1]) that prove his credentials as a scholar. He also cited this part of his site from Staatsgrundgesetz für die Herzogtümer Coburg und Gotha, vom 3. Mai 1852. (State Basic Law of the duchies of Coburg and Gotha, on 3 Mai 1852nd). His Knights of the Garter site is all well sourced.
- One concern is that there is little treatment of his marriage. The little bit that there is about it and his wife is in the caption to her picture. More could and should be said about this in the body of the work.
- I actually tried to stay away from delving too much into their marriage, because I feel I do that too often in other articles. I did however add lots on their marriage to his wife's article. Is that sufficient?
- Yeah, but its his marriage too... the childlessness obviously had an effect on him also. As it is, we don't hear anything more about it after it happens. Did he treat her kindly? Ignore her? Etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I added more information about their marriage (in the 'Marriage' section). Let me know if that looks good.
- I added more information about their marriage (in the 'Marriage' section). Let me know if that looks good.
- Basically a pretty sound article. Tends to be a bit wordy at points, and if you're thinking of FAC would recommend a copyedit or two as well as a Peer Review to help smooth down some of the wordiness.
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good! Passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)