Talk:Alexandra Tegleva

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Alexandra Tegleva

• ... that Alexandra Tegleva was Grand Duchess Anastasia's governess, so after the Russian Royal Family were executed, she helped debunk the woman who pretended to be her? Source: offline
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ervin Herve Loranth
  • Comment: alts welcome, feel free to make corrections and improvements

By Willthacheerleader18. Nominated by Victuallers (talk). Self-nominated at 22:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC).

• The article is new enough, long enough, neutral and no copyvio obvious. Offline sources are accepted AGF. The hook is interesting. All images used in the article are free, and the one used here should be clear enough. QPQ done. Good to go! Corachow (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Victuallers Bare URLs are not acceptable per DYK supplementary rule D3 which says "References in the article must not be bare URLs." IMDb cannot be used as a reference. The third reference appears to be a blog - not sure how it is a reliable source. For reference 10, what makes the blog of an auction site a reliable source? SL93 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Willthacheerleader18 appears to have did most of the work. SL93 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The major mistake here is mine. This is not my article, I was only the nominator - but I failed (for once) to add Willthacheerleader18. Sorry Willthacheerleader18. Victuallers (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I figured it was a mistake from seeing your other nominations. SL93 (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I fixed that I recken. another review @Corachow:, please Victuallers (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the two sources I mentioned above, but I will see what the reviewer thinks. SL93 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. They have been removed. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the sources mentioned above are removed, I'm restoring the tick. Corachow (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Victuallers and Corachow: I'm finding the hook language a little confusing—what does the execution have to do with the governess have to do with the imposter woman? And how do you debunk a person? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

From Vic on my talk page (accidentally closed the nom):

... that IS the hook... its an amazing story that intrigued people for decades. You cannot obvs debunk a woman, but you can debunk the invention of a woman, and that is what happened.

so... a woman pretended to be her (and our real woman is a part of the russian royal family), and the imposter was executed? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry TLC but surely enough is enough. Several people have looked at this and decided its OK/interesting/intriguing. The hook says "so after the Russian Royal Family were executed" and if you interpret that as "the imposter was executed" then maybe its just you? I think that at this point you need a pretty solid error to hold it up like this. Victuallers (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting, Victuallers, I was confused :) I can't promote a hook I don't understand, then I'm just a rubberstamp in the DYK process. Quite a few things tripped me up here, but now I'm seeing that our bolded article was a nursemaid to the Russian royal family, and after they were executed, Tegleva helped debunk the claim of someone pretending to be a part of said royal family. This hook... was not worded clearly enough for me to understand that. Maybe I'm just stupid—but I think it's more likely that I'm not going to be the only person who can't understand, and in the end, that really only hurts your hook's success. So, to me, this is a hook that's not only clearer, but also a little punchier as a bonus:

• ALT0a: ... that Alexandra Tegleva, nursemaid to Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, helped uncover a woman who impersonated Anastasia after the royal family were executed?

What do you think? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that you are messing about. You so much don't understand the hook that you have rephrased it. I think you need to take over the nomination. You are not a rubber stamp but if you are going to finesse every hook after others have already spent time looking, checking it and approving it twice then we need an overlooker for you as well. Please add your name as nominator. Victuallers (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No, thank you, but I appreciate the offer—very kind of you :) as for an overlooker, well, someone'll need to check ALT0a, because I don't think promoting ALT0 puts the best foot of this article forward to a wider audience. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As the original reviewer, I understand ALT0 perfectly fine and believe that most people will also understand it. However, ALT0a seems alright to me. Corachow (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Corachow:@Theleekycauldron: I appreciate that you agree that the hook was fine and did not need to be plagiarised. I much prefer the original hook, the hook paraphrased by TLC is obvious and fails to mention that they are Russian. The original hook was overseen by yourself, SL93 and Willthacheerleader18 as fine, and it doesnt exclude the original nominator's sole contribution. I won't be arrogant and claim that ALT0 is the "best foot of this article forward" but it has been overlooked by more people than the late pretender and it did'nt arrive as an imposition. Its wrong that your work as the approver of this article and mine as the nominator should be reworked without a strong reason. Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Well, the easiest way to mention that she's Russian is to remove the pipe in the link to Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, which I've done. For the record: in my head, I usually give hook credit to the person who had the thought to suggest the hook fact—lots of hooks get copyedited in prep, but that doesn't give the copyeditors credit, the nominator still suggested the core fact. Your "sole contribution" isn't the exact way every word of the hook is phrased; it's the fact that you saw a woman who deserved to be on the front page for an interesting life and brought it to the wider attention of DYK :) I didn't do that, I couldn't do all the things you do. ALT0, ALT0a, we're still working with the same idea, one of your suggestion; and in my book, you've got full credit for bringing this idea from nomination to the main page. Now, Kavyansh.Singh, could you please halt this discussion? Thanks in advance :) oh, and I probably shouldn't need to say this, but it's not my decision as to which hook you end up taking. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Pleased to see that you now say "we're working with the same idea" when you were previously "confused" by the original hook? Progress. You have needlessly knocked this back to replace a hook that was approved twice and overseen by experienced editors with your "best foot" version that the reviewer (and I) reckon is "OK" and I'm disappointed that you haven't acknowledged this. Victuallers (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• All right, so even I don't understand the main hook (ALT0), and let me specify why. Firstly, from what I know of DYK, we need hook to be facts. The ALT0 appears to be a one-lined synopsis of a story (wording like "so after the Russian Royal Family were executed" makes me think that way). Secondly, "she helped debunk the woman who pretended to be her?" is confusing. 'Her' here means Tegleva or Anastasia? ALT0a and ALT0 discuss the same incident, but ALT0a, in my opinion, is more "hooky". Also, I disagree that the image used is clear enough. Since both the hooks are reviewed, I can promote any. So, if I had to make a call now, I'll promote ALT0a without image. However, I won't immediately do so. Because if I and Leeky are the only ones confused by ALT0, (and @SL93, @Willthacheerleader18 find ALT0 easy enough to understand), we'll need to clarify things. @Victuallers:, do you still have strong preference for any particular hook, or are you fine with me choosing any? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm totally fine with ALT0a being used. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the review. I think that makes it 5 or 6 reviews now. I gave up my role as nominator some time back. This process isn't improving the encyclopedia its just keeping some people amused and wasting time. I think you should choose one, any one, do it. After all, if you or anyone doesn't like it later then they can always knock it back and say that they think that they might have an improvement and they are feeling under-valued. Seriously, what is Corachow's role here? Is (s)he just the warm-up act? Obviously, yes. I'm out of here. Victuallers (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, just to be clear, I wasn't revieweing, just asking which hook is to be chosen.

---

Promoting ALT0a to Prep 2, without image. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)