Although I am not familiar with every channel, my general impression is that they are fine, as long as you are either totally clueless or only have a superficial knowledge about the subject in question. For example, the issue of Kings and Generals is that the team cannot possibly cover the topic in a detailed and exhaustive manner. Their interpretation often tends to be quite simplistic, because a lot of their time is dedicated to describe the background of the events, while their explanation is also heavily vulgarised, in order to be more easily digested and understood by their audience. As a result, thanks to my total ignorance of Chinese history, I didn't particularly object to their presentation of the Cao Cao's struggle against Yuan Chao, despite the obvious mistakes already mentioned by Oda and co, but I was actually frustrated a bit, when they commented on Napoleonic warfare or Alexander's life. The Great War excelled, because the professionalism of their team and their weekly episodes allowed them to regularly produce qualitative content, which analysed the events in depth, according to the observations of the most recent bibliography, although many omissions still existed, especially in what concerned the somewhat neglected fronts of the war, for which not many English articles have been published.
Yeah, I completely agree. In my opinion, Indy dropped the ball in this case. I understand his need to start a new channel, whose prosperous future is guaranteed, thanks to his positive reputation in the Great War channel and the immense popularity of WWII, but patience is a virtue. The aftermath episodes of WWI would help maintain his image and would possibly even increase his followers and the potential fanbase for his WWII project, not to mention that 2019 would function as a much smoother anniversary than 2018. As a consequence of his abrupt departure, the Great War is currently in a hopefully temporary hiatus and I suspect that he didn't leave in the best of terms. Moreover, I believe he needed more time to organise the WWII channel, whose reliability is, for now at least, not up to the standards of its predecessor. To be honest, I have the impression that he's a bit too melodramatic sometimes and his descriptions feel a bit partial, presumably due to the fact that the majority of his sources ascribe to a specific historiographic movement. It's too early to judge, but I am really curious about how future controversial events will be described and interpreted.