Talk:Anna Anderson/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be conducting a review of this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't feel that this article meets the criteria for GA at this time. Please keep working on the article, incorporating my suggestions where possible, and feel free to renominate at a later time. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• "claimed that the unknown woman was the Grand Duchess Tatiana of Russia, one of the four daughters of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia: Tatiana, Olga, Maria and Anastasia" - could remove the final list of names
• "lady of waiting" - is this correct, or should it be "lady-in-waiting"?

• Changed

• Where was von Kleist's home? Dalldorf or elsewhere?

• Added

• Given that you link to Von Kleist for a family name, shouldn't Kleist be referred to instead as von Kleist?

• Removed

• "publicizing her cause.[3][61] Botkin's publicity" - repetitive

• Removed

• Some more wikilinks would be helpful, but some are already duplicated
• Is the correct spelling Schanzkowska or Schanzkowski?

• Both. Schanzkowska is female, Schanzkowski male.

• Some problems with missing / extraneous hyphens - see WP:MoS

• Reviewed

• "With both Jack and Anderson in failing health" - both have the same last name at this point, yet Manahan is not used after being referred to as her legal name

• Referring to her as "Anastasia" is too confusing, because she is not Anastasia: she is an impostor. Referring to both of them as "Manahan" is also confusing.

• "For example, mitochondrial DNA can be used to match maternal relations" - no, that is what mitoDNA is used for. What I think you mean is that Philip is one example of the people whose mitoDNA did not match

• Changed.

• Avoid one-sentence paragraphs

• Removed

• The pets were "put to death"? Why not the more conventional "euthanized"?

• Sources say "gassed", "destroyed" and, in Anderson's own words, "murdered". Euthanasia implies the animals were ill and were humanely put out of their misery. That does not seem to be supported by the sources.

• The "Conclusion" section is quite essay-like and, IMO, unencyclopedic. The material should be integrated into other sections or deleted

• Moved.

Accuracy and verifiability

• "could be used selectively" is OR, but saying "were used selectively" with a reference is verifiable

• Changed

• Citations needed for:

• She was rescued by a police sergeant and admitted to the Elisabeth Hospital in Lützowstrasse
• Added
• Tschaikovsky stayed in the houses of acquaintances, including Kleist, Peuthert, a poor working-class family called Bachmann
• Added
• In 1927, under pressure from his family, Valdemar decided against providing Tschaikovsky any further financial support, and the funds from Denmark were cut off
• Added
• a wealthy Park Avenue spinster happy to host someone she supposed to be a daughter of the Tsar
• Added
• In 1932, the British tabloid News of the World published a sensational story accusing her of being a Romanian actress perpetrating a fraud
• Added
• From 1938, lawyers acting for Anderson in Germany contested the distribution of the Tsar's estate to his recognized relations, and they in turn contested her identity.
• Added
• but the Nazi government had arranged the meeting to determine her identity, and if accepted as Schanzkowska she would be imprisoned
• Added
• Her Irish Wolfhound and 60 cats were put to death
• Added
• The couple lived in separate bedrooms
• Added
• William Preston, was appointed as her guardian by the local circuit court
• Added
• In January she may have had a stroke
• Added
• They were identified on the basis of both skeletal analysis and DNA testing
• Added
• It did not match that of the Duke of Edinburgh or that of the bones, confirming that Anderson was not Anastasia.
• Citation at the end of the sentence
• Most impostors were swiftly dismissed
• Added, with "swiftly" removed
• as the play progresses hints are dropped that she could be the real Anastasia, who has lost her memory. The viewer is left to decide for themselves whether Anna really is Anastasia
• Added

• Should be consistent in what information is included in Notes

• The references are referred to in Notes by abridged form by author only, with the exception of Kurth's two books which need to be disambiguated by using the titles. Other sources are given in full.

• The 1967 Massie may be only in References, but I can't be sure since some of the titles are absent in Notes

• Removed

• Vorres is only in References

• Removed

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

• The first External link may be a conflict of interest, as the author of the site is a major contributor to this article

• WP:EL states that "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." may be considered for inclusion. If this site is to be removed, then all must be removed because otherwise all the sites listed will favor the fringe view that Anderson was Anastasia, and we must avoid undue weight on particular points of view.

• While it is obvious that the editors have tried to maintain a neutral POV, the article has some significant issues with non-NPOV wording / phrasing

• No examples given.

• Multiple problems with WP:WTA (and to a lesser extent WP:Weasel)

• No examples given.

Stability

• This article has a long history of instability coupled with long "rants" on the talk page.

• One of the editors involved, User:Finneganw, is now topic banned, and another, User:RevAntonio, has invoked right to vanish [1]. Further extensive disruption is unlikely.

• While there have been improvements of late, stability is still an issue

• The content of the article now is largely identical to the content of the article since the most recent expansion (pasted from the article workspace on 24 August 2009, three weeks ago).

• A "story" tag has sporadically appeared during the reviewing process

• A single POV-warring editor should not be taken into consideration, when the majority of editors are agreed that the biography section is written as a biography not as a story.

Images

• While the description says the infobox photo was taken in 1922, it was published in 1929, and thus by my understanding doesn't fit the criteria for the tags it has. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do so on the file page

• Corrected.

• The name of the woman on that image doesn't match the spelling of her name in the infobox. Why?

• The caption on the image is in German or French. The infobox is in English.

• Why was a frame added to OTMA1915-2.jpg prior to upload? The source has none

• Image removed.

• The first link on the file page for OTMA1915-2.jpg is broken

• Image removed.

• From what I can gather from the second link on that file page, copyrights "belong to the authors or their legal heirs and assigns". Do you have evidence to the contrary?

• Image removed.

• The description on Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg says it was first published in 1927, thus making the PD tag incorrect

• Corrected.

• Ingrid Bergman and Yul Brynner in Anastasia trailer.jpg is a screenshot; thus, a) it is incorrectly tagged, and b) it requires a non-free use rationale

• It is a screenshot from a trailer made before 1976, and distributed to the public either without a copyright notice or with a copyright that has since expired, since copyright was not renewed. On wiki it is assumed that such works are in the public domain.

Comments from an IP

(After I finished my review, I noticed this comment that had appeared on my talk page while I was working here. I have reproduced it below for your consideration, and have also left a note on the anon's talk to inform him/her of this. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Before you consider it a 'good article' please consider that it uses sources now discredited due to the fact that she is a proven imposter. Just because there is no other source saying in so many words that they are discredited does not mean we can't use a little common sense and logical deduction. The source "I, Anastasia", used heavily as a source in this article currently, is a work of fiction, and borrows heavily from other sources on the family and quotes the history given and passes if off as her her 'memories." I can give you examples. Parts of it are paraphrased directly from such books as "Last Days of the Romanovs" by Robert Wilton (1920) We had previously agreed to avoid such bogus sources, and were told by other admins they were not acceptable, but now suddenly it's being used as a valid source? Something is terribly wrong here. The article is approved of by Chat, who has been banned and blocked several times over the last 2 years, but now is suddenly the only one to give his consensus. The article omits much important info which proves she was an impostor all along, avoids damaging quotes against her, and never mentions denials against her unless followed immediately by 'however this person said she was genuine!' This is what Chat the big AA supporter has been trying to do to this article for years, but other posters and admins did not even consider it. Unfortunately, since the arrival of JohnK, Dr. K became very biased and basically ran off anyone dissenting, so the 'consensus' was NOT achieved as claimed. Also, some of the language used is more like a novel than an encyclopedia, such flowerly nonsense as 'the unknown woman stated, simply and accurately' for example. If all you're looking for is something sourced correctly the old article qualified. Please consider that not every source is a valid source and that wikipedia should stand up for truth and accuracy in its articles, not the misleading wording and agenda of a few who cannot let the Anderson legend die, and those who back up the positions of others, right or wrong. It would be a disservice to the millions of readers to give this biased work that completely shut out the more logical points of view in the 'talk' discussion a GA rating. Please consider what I've said before making that mistake. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.110.141 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

These comments have already been responded to multiple times. The editor above is trying to bias the article by excluding opposing viewpoints, removing balance, and insulting other editors.

To be specific:

• von Nidda's commentary on "I, Anastasia" is a secondary source, as already said here: [2]. It is not a bogus source if used selectively, appropriately, and in addition to other sources and balancing material. The IP even admits: "there is no other source saying in so many words that they are discredited".
• The claim "Chat, who has been banned and blocked several times over the last 2 years," is untrue. User:ChatNoir24, to whom the IP is referring, has never been banned or blocked, see [3].
• As the IP admits there are at least three editors "Chat" "JohnK" and "Dr. K", who disagree with the editor's viewpoint, but the editor persists in pushing their own agenda against the majority consensus view.
• The claim that "simply and accurately" is "flowery nonsense" is untrue. The statement is supported by two sources, one of which is written by John Klier, who was a Professor of History at University College London [4][5]. The other sources used are of a similar high quality, such as Robert K. Massie, who is a former Rhodes Scholar who studied history at Yale and Oxford before winning the Pulitzer Prize for biography. These are obviously reliable sources. The IP is merely trying to remove sourced material with which they disagree in an attempt to bias the article to their own original viewpoint.
• The claim that the "old article qualified" as a better article than this one can be easily dismissed simply by looking at the version which the IP prefers: [6]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias is in this article, clearly, it's in the form of ChatNoir and Dr. K. I do not advocate 'removing sourced material', merely changing 'the unknown woman stated, simply and accurately, "I never said I was Tatiana" to something like "she then claimed she never said she was Tatiana." "Simply and accurately" is book/novel language, not encyclopedic. Of course she denied being Tatiana, AFTER she was refuted by Baroness Buxhoeveden. Had Bux fallen for the charade, she would have remained Tatiana for life. It is the language used that I object to, not the content.

Von Nidda's book should be completely disregarded as it is largely a work of fiction. How can you have an 'autobiography' of "Anastasia" when she's not? Much of the book is based on alleged 'memories' that are actually information from Romanov sources passed off as her recollections, but are obviously not. This borders on plagierism, and therefore the book is discredited. I haven't seen much use of Ian Vorres' Olga bio which was heavily used in the past versions but ignored here because Chat doesn't like it because it is against AA, and Welch's new book, which includes things that were always there but conveniently avoided by biographers who chose to present AA as Anastasia. Earlier versions heavily refererenced Welch's "Romanov Fantasy: Life at the Court of Anna Anderson" and now it is barely used.

Yes, ChatNoir24 has been warned many times before as well as reprimanded by several other mods in the past. He also has used other names in the past including plain ChatNoir, which, too ironically, appeared immediately after his real name was blocked for disruption. All anyone has to do is read the back history of the talk page to see that until Dr. K took over, no one agreed with Chat or took him seriously. The fact that he and IP/Rev approve of this article proves that it is not what it should be. Looking back, all other admins besides Dr. K have had issues with Chat and never took his side. So now what's wrong with this picture that he's now the golden boy and all others are run off?

There is NO CONSENSUS on this article as claimed. Two of the people who were strong, longtime contributors were literally run off by Dr. K clearly letting it be known nothing posted by them was going to be considered, and that only his opinion mattered. I do want to say fairly that Dr. K was very fair until the arrival of JohnK at which point he became totally subservient to JohnK's view which was also the view of ChatNoir 24 and IP/Rev. (sympathetic to Anderson) I feel this is personal bias, backing a friend over strangers, and not good for the article.

I have dealt with Anderson supporters/sympathizers on many sites over several years, and they are all ultimately tossed or run off by the admins of such sites and boards. Check out the Royal Forums for example. The goal of the Anderson supporter/sympathizer is not to openly state she was Anastasia, because they know they cannot do that in light of the DNA. Their ploy is to fill the article with as much ambiguous jargon and pro Anderson commentary from supporters, ignoring or watering down things that proved she was an imposter all along, in the hopes that the reader will say to themselves 'wow if she had that much in her favor maybe that DNA is wrong'. (notice the wording in it now never allows a negative comment about her from a detractor unless it's followed immediately by "HOWEVER this person swore she was genuine" THIS IS THE OLDEST LINE USED BY CHAT ON MANY BOARDS OVER THE YEARS AND REEKS HEAVILY OF HIM AND HE IS AN AA SUPPORTER!) The Anderson supporter/sympathizers' position of 'let the reader make up their own mind' is wrong. This is not a mystery show, this is an encyclopedia article. The goal of it should be to present factual, straightforward detailing, free of discredited, outdated info, doubletalk and ambiguity so that the readers will have their minds made up for them because the reality of the subject is undeniable. Anderson was an impostor, her claim was fraudulent, and that needs to be clearly shown here.

I propose an alternate write of this article and then put them both up for a vote by an impartial panel that does not include Dr. K or JohnK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.111.222 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NO WAY. Work in progress is work in progress, not to be sabotaged by YOU aggiebean!!75.21.156.77 (talk) 02

42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need this? I propose that Annie signs her name instead of making "anonymous" postings. This article is generally pretty good, it's factual and it points out that AA is considered to be an imposter, while still showing that many people believed her. Why be scared to show that there were people who knew the real Anastasia who believed her? It looks like they were wrong - so what? Their opinions are worth repeating - after all if no-one of any note had believed her, we wouldn't even know who she was.Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hooray for Ferrymansdaughter! You had the nerve to out aggiebean for the hysterical sneak she has always been, now posting to make it look like me. She has failed as per usual. OK, so the admin above is rather disgusted with the less-than-flawless entry. Keep at it, folks! You heard it here first, from me first! Out with aggiebean! She can rant all she wants on her own website.75.21.156.77 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)