"

 Review comments 

I took a brief look at the article after the recent peer review was closed. Here are a few comments for improvement - these are things that woulkd be a problem if this were up for WP:FAC or even WP:GAN.
The lead is five paragraphs but WP:LEAD says the limit is four paragraphs.
The lead does not summarize the article well - my rule of thumb is to include every section in the lead somehow, but the Munic Crisis, his marriage and children, his children with other women, and his death are not in the lead
WP:MOSQUOTE says that all direct quotations need to have a reference (even if they are in the lead)
To be free, most historic images need to have been published before 1923 or their source must be given so clearly that it can be determined that the image was published without a copyright notice or its copyright has expired. Images like File:CAL CAM2 DH4 Nov 4 1926.jpg were clearly taken after 1923, and lack the information as to sources that allow any sort of determination of copyright status.
Or how is this image not still under copyright - published in 1927 at the earliest File:CharlesLindbergh-RaymondOrteig.jpg?
The relevant policy for WP:FAIRUSE images is WP:NFCC, every point of which has to be met for an image to be used under fair use guidelines. I often ask myself three questions about fair use images: 1) Does the image increase the reader's understanding of the article's subject? 2) Is the image discussed in the article itself? 3) Is the image used merely for decorative purposes? NFCC requires minimal use - all of which leads to me to ask: How do two separate Fair Use covers of ""WE"" increase the reader's understanding / meet minimal use?
MOS says not to sandwich text between images - this does so in several places.
I read Mosely's biography of Lindbergh years ago (it is cited here) and read WE as a kid. This seems to me to under play Lindbergh's isolationism and at least the perception of him as an appeaser / possible Nazi sympathizer. 
The language in the lead at least seems needlessly convoluted - look at what the page Lindbergh says ""Charles Lindbergh (1902–1974), first pilot to fly solo non-stop across the Atlantic"" then look at how it described here ""As a 25-year-old U.S. Air Mail pilot Lindbergh emerged suddenly from virtual obscurity to instantaneous world fame as the result of his Orteig Prize-winning solo non-stop flight on May 20–21, 1927, made from Roosevelt Field[N 1] located in Garden City on New York's Long Island to Le Bourget Field in Paris, France, a distance of nearly 3,600 statute miles (5,800 km), in the single-seat, single-engine purpose built Ryan monoplane Spirit of St. Louis."" The facts are all there, but it is so comvoluted that if you don't already know what Lindy did, you might miss it.
What makes ""Charleslindberg.com a reliable source? See WP:RS
In short, before you worry too much about the language, there is a lot of other stuff to fix here.
Hope this helps,   ><>°° "