I see lots of linking of common terms. Per
WP:OVERLINK, country names (Hungary) and common objects (mirror, diary, bookcase, etc.) shouldn't be linked. Beware of contractions that aren't in quotes. I've removed a few instances of both but there are more in there. Also, you shouldn't have a section with just one subsection (in this case, Controversy). There should be no subsections or 2+, but not one.
'Controversy' is an inherent violation of
WP:NPOV, and there isn't really any controversial about it either. It might be simplest to just remove the subsection heading; it won't affect/disrupt the flow at all.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
File:Ge-caption.jpg needs an improved fair use rationale. It's not enough to say that it helps the reader; it helps in what way? What makes it indispensible? You can relate it commentary, criticism, production, etc, but it does need some sort of rationale.
I see lots of linking of common terms. Per
WP:OVERLINK, country names (Hungary) and common objects (mirror, diary, bookcase, etc.) shouldn't be linked. Beware of contractions that aren't in quotes. I've removed a few instances of both but there are more in there. Also, you shouldn't have a section with just one subsection (in this case, Controversy). There should be no subsections or 2+, but not one.
'Controversy' is an inherent violation of
WP:NPOV, and there isn't really any controversial about it either. It might be simplest to just remove the subsection heading; it won't affect/disrupt the flow at all.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
File:Ge-caption.jpg needs an improved fair use rationale. It's not enough to say that it helps the reader; it helps in what way? What makes it indispensible? You can relate it commentary, criticism, production, etc, but it does need some sort of rationale.