The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2024 [1].

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha[edit]

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward was born a British prince and had a quintessential upper-class Victorian upbringing. Nannies, governess, prep schools, Eton and regular visits to Granny Vicky. Until one day a succession crisis in a tiny German statelet changed his future forever. He was not the first candidate for the dukedom but German emperor (and cousin) Wilhelm wanted a boy he could mold into one of his henchmen and Charles Edward, whose father had been dead since before he was born, seemed like the perfect candidate. The teenaged prince had been put on path that would take him to strange, nasty places.

This is my first featured article candidacy. I have been working on this article sporadically over recent years, heavily in the past several months and done a lot research into this man's life. The article has been promoted to good status, informally and formally peer reviewed since december. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to review it, I will try to respond as fast as I can. Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Hello and welcome to FAC! I'll open with an image review

done

done

The first image is old enough to be assumed in the public domain. I've added a copyright tag specifying that. The second image has been given to the commons by the German archive.

The first one still has a tag based on publication date, so we still need info on first publication. On the second, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The United States section of List of countries' copyright lengths says that anonymous works enter the public domain "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" so it should be in the public domain by now whenever it was published. However, I'm not sure what tag to use to indicate that point.
  1. The 120 from creation piece only kicks in if it was first published after 1978, according to that table, so we'd still need to know when it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found the relevant page on the source website. It says the picture's in the public domain. I'll update the page momentarily.--Llewee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Okay, so why then are you adding a CC BY tag? I'm confused. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have got the right licence now.--Llewee (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sorry I got mixed up between images, I'm not quite sure how to interpret the second image, the source says (http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/-/Lizenz%3A+Gemeinfrei) it thinks the image is in the public domain but isn't sure. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since this is hosted on Commons, even if we take that as correct we'd still need to know US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up a translation of the source and it seems to have been taken by someone who died in 1913. I've added a translation

What about File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I meant the second image, the first image was taken by someone who died in 1936. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both are - one is Coburg and the other is Gotha. I've added a clarification of the relevant colour.

I've added a UK government copyright template. I'm not sure if it also needs a US template?

No, but the source should be clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to make the source and author sections more informative--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that these have been edited? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to publish the edit, done now.--Llewee (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken that image out now.--Llewee (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Nikkimaria, apologies for asking lots of questions, I'm not hugely fluent in copyright issues.--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the order of the Garter image and added File:"L'oncle de l'Europe" devant l'objectif caricatural - images anglaises, françaises, italiennes, allemandes, autrichiennes, hollandaises, belges, suisses, espagnoles, portugaises, américaines, etc. (14776736585).jpg.--Llewee (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a more specific tag available for this new image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of more specific tags.--Llewee (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I don't think I'll have time to post full review, but the statement that "In March 1945, the German government formed a "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" of which Charles Edward was made chairman. This group was meant to negotiate with the Western Allies in order to gain better living conditions for the defeated Germans after the war. The committee members were in theory "uncompromised" Germans with fewer links to the regime. The quick collapse of Nazi Germany after that point meant that enough time was not available for negotiations" jumped out of me:

The source "Charles Edward of Saxe-Coburg: The German Red Cross and the Plan to Kill "unfit" citizens 1933-1945 pp 165-166" says;
In March 1945 Hitler asked Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to form a Committee for the Protection of European Humanity. Charles Edward was designated as chairman, and the group was supposed to represent "uncompromised" Germans in their association with the National Socialist government who could negotiate with the Western Allies to ensure tolerable living conditions for civilians in Germany after the war concluded. As president of the DRK, Charles Edward contacted ICRC Vice President Carl Burckhardt who agreed to act as an liaison with the British and American governments on the matter. The coordinated military thrusts from both East and West resulted in such a rapid collapse of the German military that the committee never really had time to begin fruitful negotiations with the foreign governments. Total surrender devolved by May 1945, and Hitler was dead (Zimmerman, 1980; Stauffer, 1991, 167-190, Stauffer, 1998, 350; Poguntke, 2010, 125).
Given the quality of the source I mainly just took its contents on trust. I suppose lack of time might be shorthand for not enough time for the allies to be asked and say no but I don't really know.--Llewee (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Ian Kershaw's book The End today, which is one of the standard works on the last period of Nazi Germany, and it confirms that Hitler didn't want to enter into any form of peace negotiations (aside from sort-of tolerating negotiations to end the fighting in Italy). There were multiple breakaway groups though that attempted this. As this topic seems to be outside of the book you're consulting's area of focus, I'd suggest cross checking these claims against more specialist sources, as I'm fairly confident that the author here is mistaken. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched the book you referenced on Google books for uses of the phrase "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" but none appeared. I can't find any relevant search results on this website or the wider internet. As the sources Rushton references are all German language sources I probably wouldn't be able to much information out of I think it might be best just to take the text out.--Llewee (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Nick-D, I forgot to link to you.--Llewee (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some further comments in response to a request on my talk page:

  • I have tried to make the first sentence simpler and reorganised the first paragraph.
  • I have clarified this.
  • done
  • I've moved that sentence to after the first two sentence based on the 1977 German article.--Llewee (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't say who made that particular criticism but I have tried to add more context to the paragraph.
  • The problem is that 1918 is forward in time from "peacetime reign" but the information doesn't really fit in the First World War section.
  • I think that should be better
  • I've tried to add some additional clarity to that sentence but the sources don't say much more than that he was present. Urbach says he was not doing very much which is mentioned in the article.
  • I've changed it to anxiety.
  • I have added the year at the start.
  • The 2016 and 2018 books don't say much about his views in their concluding summaries. I have tried to add more detail, especially more emphasis on his importance to the regime in the relevant section.

Support My comments are now addressed and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment. ... died ..., [[Haemophilia in European royalty|having suffered]] from [[haemophilia]] is a MOS:EASTEREGG violation (and perhaps one of MOS:SUFFER as well). You could write something like "... who was a haemophiliac like many other European royalty, died ..." but I am sure there is an even better way to phrase it. —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording now.--Llewee (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

I am interest to read the article again after the informal peer review. I will leave the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments, I'll work through them as quickly as possible.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and family background

Childhood

Selection as heir

  • I can see that but it's based on the names the two men's articles use.
  • done

Marriage ...

  • The dictionary entry does cite sources. I've added an abbreviation.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • The quote uses different brackets than those usually used for translations by Urbach, so I think the duke might have decided to write the phrase in both languages in his letter.--Llewee (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given the paragraph these previous few points refer to a general tidy up.--Llewee (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded this, is it clearer now?--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political ...

  • Apologies if I'm mistaken but I assume the school types weren't the same in the 1920s. I've changed the footnote to something more general.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial diplomat

  • done

Second World War

  • done

Trial ...

  • done
  • done
  • done

Death

  • done

General: the separation of personal and political life (under Far-right) makes for a tricky chronology - something to think about. I'll look at the lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now organised it into sections based on time period--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, infobox

Thank you for restoring the comments, I tried the indenting also. Easy rule: when replying to something indented, copy that indenting. (If not the whole idea gets lost. Which may make it tricky for someone blind.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your return: reading the lead again after your changes, I like it much better. I suggest you introduce "a state of the German Empire" sooner, because that is so unexpected. I wonder if it would be better to mention in the first paragraph - which should be a rough overview - his functions in the Red Cross and as informal diplomat, and bring the details later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made those changes.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't know how else to say it. In the first paragraph, I'd just say he was leader of the Red Cross and an informal diplomat (to distinguish from a SS leader or minister). The details - that at the time the Red Cross was carrying out eugenic concepts - don't belong in the first few sentences, but rather the last para of the lead, and in not too much detail. Other than that, I'm ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done--Llewee (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it was a pleasure, - support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therealscorp1an[edit]

I have reorganised the lead now.--Llewee (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think its taken awkward wording from one of sources. It should be better now.--Llewee (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a new section in order to create more of a balance between the different sections sizes. I'm reluctant to split up education and regency because they cover heavily overlapping time periods.--Llewee (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee away until next weekend (Old post, please ignore)[edit]

Hello all, thank you for your comments which have been very helpful. I am about to go away on holiday, I'll carry on working on the article when I get back.--Llewee (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know. I came to say that in this edit (conflict?), you lost indenting and replies, wanting to ask you to fix it. Perhaps I can do it, just not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Buidhe[edit]

Article says that Martha Liebermann was going to be deported to Auschwitz. This is unlikely because elderly German Jews and especially those well connected were almost always deported to Theresienstadt. Martha Liebermann's article seems to have the correct information with a source. Can you fix this? (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, The cited book says it was Auschwitz.--Llewee (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's wrong though, for the reasons discussed above, and especially because the source in Liebermann's article seems to say the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even just googling for "Martha Liebermann" "Auschwitz" I find plenty of sources that say she was about to be deported to Theresienstadt, and no claims that she was going to Auschwitz. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it and added a source from her page.--Llewee (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, thanks for the response, I have read through the relevant chapter of the first book and added some information which is pertinent to this article. I will respond to your other comments later this evening. I would like to mention, though, that out of the five main sources used in the article two are in German and one is written in English by a German.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I have changed it to "ruling".--Llewee (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • done
  • done
  • I'm not really sure who he is. He is listed as the writer of the duke's entry in a German encyclopaedia.
  • done
  • I've added a conversion in a footnote
  • The conversions in notes 2 and 6 are False precision. For "£6,000 in 1890 was the equivalent to £637,962.29 in 2023", say "around £638,000", and for "2,500,000 marks in 1910 was the equivalent of 122152.50 British pounds at the time", "around £122,000". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any more information about it.
  • done
  • I've added some more detail.
  • done
She says because of the First World War.--Llewee (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done now
  • done
  • done
  • I have added more emphasis on the international context.--Llewee (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eugenics was a mainstream part of international academic and public debate in the early 20th century.[119][120][121] Eugenic policies were introduced in various countries including France, the United States and the United Kingdom." This is clumsy and dubious on the UK. Eugenic laws were proposed but so far as I know never passed. Maybe something like "In the early twentieth century eugenic ideas received wide international support across the political spectrum and eugenic policies such as compulsory sterilisation of "defectives" were introduced in several countries. The theory lost mainstream support after WWII because of its use by the Nazis to justify mass murder." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • I've added her name to the first mention, in the regency section, and changed the later mentions to her surname.--Llewee (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to keep it in the Unofficial diplomat section because it falls into that category. The German Red Cross and eugenics section also included information about events that happened after 1939.
  • Yes that's what Rushton says. He argues that Charles Eduard could have persuaded Hitler to stop the murders of disabled people on the grounds that they were undermining the wartime morale of the German people. I've tried to make the point clearer.
  • Ok, I have got rid of it now,
I think I have responded to all you concerns now Dudley Miles.--Llewee (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

I am aware that Dudley is in the middle of a review, but also that this nomination has been open for eight weeks and while attracting a lot of comments has only the single general support. Unless it makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod[edit]

Fascinating if sad story. Nothing much jumped out on a read-through, & I see the article has been generally well-chewed over above. I' do some locating in the caption to the photo of him seated with Goebbels etc, though - "from right" perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Therealscorp1an[edit]

Article looks good and seems like all issues have been addressed. I am in support. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma[edit]

I was asked for a further opinion. I do not yet have a support or oppose to offer (and I am not sure I can without reviewing the sources) but I was surprised to read that "Victoria Adelaide lacked any [..] Jewish ancestry". Why would we expect any Jewish ancestors? European royalty are known for marrying only European royalty (none of which were Jewish) to the point of pedigree collapse. Mentioning explicitly the lack of Jewish ancestors seems odd, almost like saying explicitly that she did not have any Maori ancestry. Also, emdashes in "Marriage and children" section should be endashes, see MOS:DASH. —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is relevant as the article makes clear there was prejudice against non-Germans and German Jews. The rules against marrying non-Royals were not universally observed. According to [3] Prince Philip had Jewish ancestors. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, It based on the text of the source which emphasises those two points;
It was obvious that the Duke of Coburg would soon need a German wife. So the Empress arranged the marriage concluded in October 1905 with her niece Viktoria Adelheid of Schleswig-Holstein-Glücksburg - an old German noble family that had no foreigners or even Jews in its ancestry. In a special issue of the Coburger Tageblatt on the occasion of the wedding in the ducal house it was said that the people "will always prefer to welcome a princess born into their own tribe as mother of the country rather than a stranger." --Llewee (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concede the point on Jewish ancestry (and I know I was exaggerating wrt "only royalty"; the scandals surrounding Mary Bowes, another ancestress of Charles III, feature prominently in one of my articles, Eliza Stephens). Besides the rumors of illegitimacy, Franz Leopold Lafontaine, the grandfather of Julia, Princess of Battenberg, appears to have married the daughter of a converted court Jew. I think the main point is the German public objected to foreign-born duchesses. It is weird this was such a big issue in a country ruled by a grandson of Queen Victoria. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was perhaps the point. The Kaiser's mother Victoria, Princess Royal (odd article title, given she was Empress of Germany, if only for a Truss-like 99 days) caused a fair degree of embarassment by more or less refusing to "be German". For example, she died in 1901 and left instructions she be buried wrapped in a Union Jack. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the dashes, I have changed them now.--Llewee (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kusma, just checking if there is any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't really have time and energy to look in very much detail and will not comment further on prose (as would be needed for a well founded support). I have looked at the sources mentioned by buidhe above and tried a short search myself and could not find extensive coverage in my usual places. From Morgenbrod-Merkenich 347–350, I think there is a little bit to add about the 1940 voyage; that Roosevelt almost did not meet Carl Eduard (p. 348), and that Carl Eduard's charisma prevented a diplomatic disaster (p. 349). The American Red Cross's hostility sounds less harsh on p. 348. None of this is major though.
It looks like JJE is on the source review; if that ends in a pass, I am not planning to object to promotion of this article. —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

Thank you for the comments Gog the Mild, I think I have responded to all but one of them. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the Sandner one, as the only use of it is citation number 44 which has a page number.--Llewee (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 78, should that be 2016?
  • Cites 31, 35 and 43 do not link to Victoria in the bibliography.
  • "During the First World War, he chose to support the German Empire and participated in the Imperial German Army in non-combatant positions due to a disability" is slightly ambiguous. Perhaps 'During the First World War he chose to support the German Empire, participating in the Imperial German Army; due to a disability he was only appointed to non-combatant positions' or similar?
  • "The German Revolution deposed him". Er, actually it didn't. Maybe 'He was disposed during the German Revolution ...'?
  • The second paragraph of the lead uses "he was" five times, including three times in one sentence.
  • I've substituted three of the five "he was'".--Llewee (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entries in the bibliography should be in alphabetical order. (Stadler}
  • Stadler and Sandner each need eg "|pages=269–298" to show the source's page range of the chapter or article referred to within its host work.
  • I've taken out the chapter headings as they aren't really needed.--Llewee (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, I've responded to these issues.--Llewee (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

Note 4 needs a citation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done, AirshipJungleman29--Llewee (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I must echo the point raised by other people that the article relying almost entirely on English sources strikes me as inappropriate - this is a topic with way more pertinence to German history. "Moorhouse, Roger (18 July 2015). "Go Betweens for Hitler by Karina Urbach". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 19 December 2022." does not need an ISSN. I am not sure that O'Donovan is prominent enough for them to be cited here in the review. There seems to be a bit of an alphabetization issue in the Sources section. Is "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, H.H. Prince Andreas (2015). I Did It My Way. Memoirs of HH Prince Andreas of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Eurohistory.com. ISBN 9781944207007." used anywhere? Giving a courtesy cite to @Ealdgyth and K.e.coffman: in case they have further points. Spot-check of this version:

I don't think it is fair to say the article is based almost entirely on English sources. Büschel, Oltmann and Facius are all used extensively in the article. Also, Urbach is a German writing in English. With the exception of Rushton, the English language sources written by authors with no connection to Germany tend to be concentrated in the early part of the article or in the later sections about his relationship with Britain. I've tried to add more information from the sources Buidhe suggested. I'm including O'Donovan because it was published in The Daily Telegraph which is a well-known newspaper in the UK. I have taken out the ISBN in Moorhouse.--Llewee (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the memoirs you mentioned was being used but has been removed by another editor.--Llewee (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have responded to all these issues now. Llewee (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "somewhat delicate condition" almost undoubtedly means illness, 19th century newspapers often used euphemisms for subjects which were considered crude, you would baptise a baby early because you were worried about them dying prematurely at a time when infant mortality was still quite common--Llewee (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, this a link to a document with a copy of the sources; https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSbwZByG1f9f0H5euUwVUJTYzJEAP9egtSfSIE3R95fD5jIEveDtyHtpEdJzZ841-dXaGAJlbyrLzyG/pub Llewee (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've now responded to all the issues you mentioned in the review.--Llewee (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also tried to increase use of Büschel throughout the article to add more emphasis on the German point of view.--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is fine, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Llewee[edit]

Thank to everyone who has recently commented. I haven't been able to respond to many of your comments as I haven't had much time to edit for the past few days. I am likely to be very busy for about another week. I should have more time to work on this article after that. Llewee (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llewee, this has now been open for ten weeks. It has been moving along nicely but has more recently stalled. I note your comment that you should be able to address comments about a week after 23 May. Hopefully this means that we will be seeing responses in the very near future, as it would be a shame for this to time out over "actionable objections have not been resolved" after getting so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llewee, could you confirm that the information requested by Jo-Jo has been sent to them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, I have sent it to them now.--Llewee (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More