Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Anderson/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [1].

Anna Anderson

[edit]
Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

A notorious imposter who lept into a canal to kill herself, ran around naked on a Park Avenue roof, and spent time in an asylum, believed by some to be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (also a featured article). DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC) amended 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At my FAC I was told I could put all my inline citations at the end of their sentence if I wanted. I think this would be a good idea for you, particularly with the last line of the lead. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The lead image's alt text should briefly say what Anderson looks like; this is obvious to the sighted reader who can see the image, but a visually impaired reader currently is given no clue. Eubulides (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find a reliable source which describes her appearance, except in relation to someone else's features (i.e. "her nose is more prominent than Anastasia's", or "her eyes are the same colour as Anastasia's"). DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:ALT#Verifiability says, you don't need a reliable source merely to describe what's in an image, as the image verifies its own description. Obviously the alt text can't say "she looks like Anastasia!" but it can say what the image looks like. I wrote something. I noticed my edit was the first in more than a week: I hope the article's not frozen or anything. Eubulides (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No further comment, so I guess my draft alt text is good enough. By the way, I forgot to thank you for writing the alt text for the other images: thanks! Eubulides (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially keen on that reference, and tried (unsuccessfully) to remove it. However, it is written by John Godl, who also wrote an article on Anderson for the "European Royal History Journal" (reference number 3 in the article). So, if you consider that a reliable source, then Godl would count as an "acknowledged expert". I do not believe that the "European Royal History Journal" is a peer-reviewed academic journal, though I could be wrong, but the editor does claim to have a degree in history,[3] to only publish "serious and thoughtful research"[4], and is independent of Godl (and so a third-party). Godl's article is critiqued by Peter Kurth (who wrote the most substantial biography of Anderson) on his website: http://www.peterkurth.com/anna-anastasia.htm. So, that would perhaps count as "academic discourse". I think it is hard to argue that Godl is not a reliable source, given that he has published in the area and his work is criticised by others working on this subject. If your query relates to whether Archimandrite Serfes is a reliable publisher, then I can only say that he is a priest, and independent of Godl, so it would appear that he is (though not a professional one). I realise that some editors may consider this source to be on the border of acceptable, but I have a hard time coming up with a valid reason to reject it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but while it may meet the minimum requirements for WP:V, I'm not sure it meets the higher FA requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering other academics are responding to this piece, it seems important to include, although it would be nice to find independent verification for the following information: Five years after the original testing was done, Dr. Terry Melton of the Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, stated that the DNA sequence tying Anderson to the Schanzkowska family was "still unique", though the database of DNA patterns at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory had grown much larger, leading to "increased confidence that Anderson was indeed Franziska Schanzkowska". Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. This complicated narrative is clearly told - well done! The article is well-written, thoroughly researched, and comprehensive. I do have some minor suggestions:
  • I wonder if the lead goes into too much detail about the DNA testing in the third paragraph.
  • I'm curious how you decided on the naming scheme used in the article. While I had no trouble following the name changes for Anderson, I'm wondering if it could confuse others.
  • I, Anastasia: An autobiography with notes by Roland Krug von Nidda translated from the German by Oliver Coburn, London: Michael Joseph, 1958 - Needs an author
  • Clarke, William (2008), Romanoff Gold: The Lost Fortune of the Tsars, The History Press, - Needs a publication location
  • Lovell, James Blair (1991), Anastasia: The Lost Princess, Robson Books, - Needs a publication location

Thank you for working on this! Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Added the locations. I'm uncomfortable adding an author to I, Anastasia: there isn't one listed on the edition I'm using (1958). I think one is just supposed to infer that Anastasia wrote it. Modern editions give the author as Anna Anderson, though it was actually ghost-written in her name. The naming scheme came about because I decided that if one introduces her as "Anderson" in the first section the article loses some of its dramatic impetus. I think introducing her as an unknown helps to carry the story along. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had some fine, excellent work and represents a major tribute to scholastic overhauling. However, before it explodes on the Wikiworld scene of spectacular articles, I suggest-- as I have continuously done-- that the article's grammar and structure be streamlined. I have read high school term essays that read better than this article. With that one bit of editing, this article would indeed be exemplary. Hopefully, some of the inputters here would not be shy about reading and posting comments at the talk page! It is NOT a controversial subject!76.195.81.239 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make some specific suggestions for what to improve? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions?--I could and I did, several times, at the talk page. But I wish to point out here that with user DrKiernan hogging all work in progress, those suggestions really don't matter, unless some admins come and read for themselves.76.195.81.239 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that many comments with regard to the prose. Considering the accusation you made above regarding high school essays, you should have no problem pointing out a litany of problems. However, there is no such list anywhere. If you can make one, I'm sure we would all be grateful, as it would only improve the writing of the article. With regards to your contention that DrKiernan is "hogging" the work, you should be aware that as the nominator of this article, s/he is supposed to respond to all the issues raised here and most articles that are brought to FAC have a "primary contributor" that does the majority of the work. Also, you should know that admins have nothing to do with this process. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit, this IP editor is a former account who invoked right to vanish after his disruptive edits drew the attention of administrators. Typical posts include: [5] [6] and User talk:76.195.82.162. I do not consider his objections to the prose either justifiable or actionable. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DrK. I didn't know. Awadewit (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anna_Anderson/archive1&oldid=1138454573"