Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia

edit

This is a self-nomination. The article has had a peer review and has been passed as a good article and seems to meet the criteria.--Bookworm857158367 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComment Main photo lacks source information, and should have a more specific tag. "Tyutcheva fired", yes, but possibly only because the children were growing up and had less need of a nanny? I still think you need to cite this statement, I see my hidden comment requesting one is still there! DrKiernan 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added the requested citation; also retagged the photo. The portrait is from 1914 and is definitely in the public domain. It was published on postcards during World War One. In the U.S. I think any photo that was published before 1924 is generally in the public domain.--Bookworm857158367 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was under the impression that users were only supposed to nominate one article at a time for FAC so that they can concentrate on improving that one and so that the reviewers don't get overwhelmed. See directions at the top of the page. Thanks for your consideration. Awadewit 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's already here and has been commented upon. I don't think it's necessary to remove one of the submissions. They're related anyway. Any comments or suggestions on either of them?--Bookworm857158367 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is no rule. If a nominator thinks that he can support at the same time efficiently more than one nominations, nobody can prevent him from doing so.--Yannismarou 11:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this sentence in the second paragraph at the top of the page was a polite way of saying not to do that: "Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." I will review this article later. Awadewit 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are my comments.
  • Throughout her lifetime she was noted for her friendliness and interest in the lives of the soldiers. - parallelism
Fixed.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just call the first section "Childhood"?
Done.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contemporaries described her as a pretty, flirtatious girl, broadly built - begin each section with her name so that it is not confusing for the reader
Done.--Bookworm857158367 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • her looks were compared to one of Botticelli's angels - her looks or her?
Her looks, specifically, not her character.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe her "features" then?
Changed phrase to "physical appearance." --Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we care she was left-handed?
I don't see why not. It is an interesting factoid, mentioned in one of the aforementioned biographies by a person who knew her and thought it was worth commenting upon. --Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria's moodiness coincided with her menstrual period, which the Tsarina and her daughters referred to as a visit from "Madame Becker". - it seems like you are reinforcing a false stereotype here
Nonetheless, Tsarina Alexandra mentioned in a letter to Tsar Nicholas that Maria bellowed and was irritable because she had her period. I have cited the letter. In Maria's case the stereotype appeared to be true. --Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • suffered frequent attacks of haemophilia and nearly died several times - I'm not sure, does not suffer an attack of haemophilia? The wording seemed odd to me. I thought one either had it or one did not - it was not a condition that came and went (it's genetic, as you say).
I have changed the phrase to "complications of haemophilia."--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You spell hemophilia differently throughout the article.
I have regularized the spelling of haemophilia throughout. --Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is probably a little too much about Anastasia at the end of the article. I believe you submitted an article about Anastasia? Why not include a fork to that article and summarize a bit more here?
The subject of a survivor appears relevant to both Maria and Anastasia because there is speculation that Maria survived rather than Anastasia.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so focus on Maria's possible survival rather than Anastasia's.
Done. --Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six years at the russian court" link does not work in the footnotes
Link worked when I tried it. --Bookworm857158367 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't work here. Could others try it? Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get the site but not the file (just a red cross), is it something to do with security settings or download times? (Don't ask me about computers). DrKiernan 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be. When I click on the link I get the Gilliard text.--Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please format all of your references the same way in the bibliography.
I have attempted to reformat the references the same way. Please tell me what else you need done. --Bookworm857158367 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are still missing publication companies on some of them. And what is with all of the commas? It is really hard to follow. Try MLA-style or Chicago-style or something. Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted the references the same way it was done in the Anastasia biography. It's been more than a decade since I used MLA-style, so I may have made mistakes. Let me know if there's still more to do on it. --Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, which of these biographies have been reviewed by scholars? I noticed that they are all popular biographies. Which ones have been endorsed by scholars in the field, meaning that they aren't just written by some fly-by-night biographer who doesn't know any history? Awadewit 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix these things tonight or tomorrow when I have a little more time. Regarding your comment about "popular biographies," I have to take issue with the implication that they are "fly-by-night." The sources used here are for the most part primary sources, by people who actually knew the grand duchess and wrote memoirs and people who conducted interviews with those who knew her. Nicholas and Alexandra is the gold standard in this field. I doubt that the grand duchesses receive more than a passing reference in the sort of scholarly reference you're undoubtedly discussing, one which deals primarily with the government of Nicholas II or with the Russian Revolution. The texts I am using are ones that deal primarily with the personal lives of Tsarina Alexandra or of the grand duchesses, in which they are the central figures and not the political situation in the country. The Fate of the Romanovs, by King and Wilson, also makes use of previously unpublished (in English) material found in the Russian Federation. The biography at the end of most of these books is extensive. These are also the same references that were used for the two previous biographies about her sisters that were listed as Featured Articles, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia and Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia. In short, just because something is "popular" does not mean it is poorly researched or "fly by night." As a journalist, I believe in using primary sources wherever possible, which is what I have done.--Bookworm857158367 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my responses to your respones to my responses.
  • Many popular biographies are "fly-by-night." They are written by biographers who study their subject for a year or so and then write a book. The author then moves on to the next subject. These biographies tend to be shoddy. See Talk:Cicero for one example that I uncovered. Popular biographies written by scholars can be better because the author knows the field. They are still often sensantionalized and distored, though, in order to sell books. That is why it is better to use scholarly biographies.
These particular books are the best that are available in this particular field and are well-researched.--Bookworm857158367 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is interesting that you say you are using mostly primary sources. That would mean that this article is original research. Assembling primary materials and presenting them as an article is original research. You must rely only on what established experts in the field have said. I quote WP:ATT: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce." You may do one thing as a journalist but you have to do another thing on wikipedia.
By primary sources, I mean biographies that are written by people who knew the family and by biographers who have relied on scholarly research or interviews with people who knew the family, not by research I have personally done. We apparently mean different things by the term. These are books using secondary sources and interviews as references.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is right on the line of primary and secondary, in my opinion. If they did research, etc., it's more likely secondary, even if they knew the person. Although if the book has a highly slanted view, it's probably considered primary. Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to trust first-person point of view whenever possible. A biography or memoir by someone who actually knew the subject is second only to a published autobiography in the estimation I'd give it. I rate them as even more trustworthy when the same facts are cited independently by two or three or more different biographers. However, the references I've cited are a mix. Lili Dehn and Sophie Buxhoeveden were former ladies in waiting who knew the empress and conducted some independent research prior to writing their books; Anna Vyrubova was the best friend of the empress and also a lady in waiting; Pierre Gilliard was the tutor to the imperial children and had known them intimately from early childhood up until their imprisonment; Margaretta Eagar was the nanny to the four daughters of the Tsar up until 1904 and wrote her memoirs based on her experiences. However, Massie wrote Nicholas and Alexandra in the 1960s based on research of those prior sources and also from the analysis done by historians. Kurth's Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson is an account of Anna Anderson but also deals with other Russian emigrees and their perspective on the Anna Anderson case. Kurth did hundreds of interviews and referenced numerous books, court trials, etc. King and Wilson's The Fate of the Romanovs is primarily an account of the circumstances surrounding the imprisonment of the Romanovs and their execution utilizing documents and memoirs written in Russian and unpublished up until recently. There's a mix of references here. I've used the references that are the best for this particular subject. --Bookworm857158367 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say Nicholas and Alexandra is the gold standard in the field. I assume you mean scholars themselves use it. I will trust you on that.
Yes, Nicholas and Alexandra is a primary source used by most contemporary biographers.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not referring to scholarly discussions of the government or the revolution. Scholars write biographies as well.
And, as I explained above, the texts I have used are well-researched, well-cited and are factual.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that just because something is popular does not mean it is poorly-researched, it just means that one must treat it with extra skepticism, which is what I am doing. One must investigate whether or not it is reliable. Awadewit 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, are you familiar enough with these texts or their authors enough to call them fly-by-night? The references I am using are the best available for this particular subject. There ARE no "scholarly" biographies dealing specifically with Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia. There are several dealing with her parents and a number that deal primarily with the Russian Revolution in which she is mentioned in passing.--Bookworm857158367 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not refer to these biographies as "fly-by-night." I said many popular biographies are fly-by-night which is why I was asking about them (by the way, I think you, as the editor, should be able to defend your sources, which you are doing). But now we are getting to a much better answer - "the best available sources," other biographies don't mention her, etc. These are much better answers. Thank you. I withdraw the objection. Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for similar reasons to those I've outlined for the subsequent nomination. Here are examples of why a copy-editor needs to be brought in to review the whole text.
    • "During her lifetime, Maria, too young to become a Red Cross nurse like her elder sisters during World War I, was patroness of a hospital and visited wounded soldiers instead." The last word is poorly positioned.
    • "She hoped to marry and have a large family." This purports to know what was going on inside her mind. It is odd to make such a bald statement in the lead, unreferenced.
    • "latter years of the twentieth century" - no, "latter" is the second of two items.
    • "rumor(ed)" occurs too often. Audit other repetitions, too, such as "described" ... "described".
    • "her physical appearance was compared to one of Botticelli's angels" - false contrast: insert "that of" or reword.
    • "Maria tended to be dominated by Anastasia because of the energy and enthusiasm of her younger sister. The pair were also dressed similarly for special occasions, wearing variations of the same dress." The first sentence is clumsy; why "also"? Tony 07:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you or someone else would like to go through the article and copy-edit it, that's certainly welcome. As to the comment about the lead articles, I've seen conflicting opinions about whether they should include citations or not. The lead paragraphs are considered a summary of the rest of the article. The comment about her hoping to marry and have a large family is taken from letters she wrote and biographies about the family and is supported with a citation elsewhere in the article. These seem like relatively minor objections, however. I don't think it's horribly written. What do you think about the overall content? --Bookworm857158367 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder. Thanks, but I won't take up your offer to copy-edit the whole text; you'll need to find someone else, possibly at the League of Copyeditors, or from your own research into who's been doing good copy-editing in this field. I've chosen at random a window of text in the middle of the article; it indicates that thorough copy-editing throughout is required.
    • "The family was arrested and imprisoned first in their home at Tsarskoye Selo and later at residences in Tobolsk and Yekaterinburg in Siberia." It would be so much kinder to our readers to include more commas consistently, as has been done in some sentences; here, one after "imprisoned" isn't quite mandatory, but almost is. Such commas are an issue in attempting to produce the required professional standard of writing.
    • "were stricken with the measles"—Remove "the".
    • "The Tsarina was hesitant to move the children"—"reluctant" would be better.
    • "and the Tsarina felt she could rely upon her third daughter to help her as she could not rely upon the deeply depressed Olga or Anastasia,"—Ungainly repetition of "rely upon".
    • "She and her parents were searched and warned they would be subject to further searches." "Searched" seems a little vague here; who did the searching?
    • "and talked with them about their families and her own hopes for a new life in England when she was released." The last three words cause ambiguity. Tony 00:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went over it again myself and tightened up some of the sentences per your suggestions and the things I spotted on my own. I've done some rewriting and rephrasing of sentences to improve the flow, make it more clear, etc. There isn't a whole lot more I feel I can do to improve upon it.--Bookworm857158367 16:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright on image?: Image:Grand Duchess Maria.jpg, if it really is PD, should be stored at Commons not here. It is tagged as a "life + 70" PD (which means it is public domain in most jurisdictions), with a rationale "This photo of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia is from about 1914. It was published on post cards during World War One and is in the public domain due to its age and publication prior to 1924." The rationale clearly conflicts with the tag. It is not at all certain that the photographer (currently unidentified) died before 1937. It is quite possible that the photographer did not die until the 1950s or later - a photograph from 1914 is not particularly old and the photographer may not have been an old man when he took it (I know of many photos from much earlier that are still under copyright and for which the copyright is enforced). The "publication prior to 1924" argument is not suitable for claiming a photograph is generally in the public domain - it refers to a specific rule operating only in the United States (and it's 1923 not 1924), and which means that a work may not be PD in other jurisdictions (even ones applying the "life plus 70 years" rule); if this is the rule that is being used, then you need to use Template:PD-US. However, this only applies if the work was published in the United States before 1923. So you need to state where the postcards were published - if only in Russia, then the pre-1923 rule doesn't apply. 172.189.56.179 10:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These were official photographs that were used on postcards in various countries in World War I. I'm not sure whether one of them was the United States, but I think it likely was. It was a photograph that someone else had uploaded to Wikipedia before I started working on the articles. If someone else cares to change the tag on the photo, go ahead. --Bookworm857158367 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now: Its generally very good, but there are some prose issues yet. Examples from the lead:
  • "During her lifetime, Maria, too young to become a Red Cross nurse like her elder sisters during World War I, was patroness of a hospital and instead visited wounded soldiers. Throughout her lifetime she was noted for interest in the lives of the soldiers." - Mixed tense, wrong order, repetition (her lifetime), confused: during World War I vs. throughout her lifetime - I know what you are getting at, but the prose are jumbled.
  • "She was an elder sister of the famous Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, whose escape from the assassination of the imperial family has been rumored for nearly 90 years" - Anastasia was a Grand Duchess, "famous" is implied. "has been rumored" - has been the subject of rumour. "from the assassination of the imperial family" - lacks context for a lead statement.
Overall, this is a strong article, and all the hard work is done; but a prose audit is needed. Ceoil 23:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Grand_Duchess_Maria_Nikolaevna_of_Russia/archive1&oldid=126795969"