Talk:Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One dab fixed to redlink.

Linkrot: No dead links found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Although Christmas and Easter were times of celebration and extravagance, the family was deeply religious. Complete non-sequitur. Implies that religious people don't celebrate these very christian feast?
 * moved into a 200-room house on Sergievskaya street  house or mansion or even palace?
 * Perhaps Olga accepted his proposal to gain independence from her own mother, the Dowager Empress Marie, or avoid marriage into a foreign court. Perhaps is a weasel word, needs attribution.
 * In the adjacent villages, she subsidized the village school out of her own pocket,  plural villages, then singular?
 * For the few who knew, the relationship between Kulikovsky and the Grand Duchess was a guarded secret,[31] but gossip about their romance still spread through society. contradictory, either it was a secret or not.
 * Just a few days later, World War I erupted erupted is not a neutral word.
 * Conceivably, Olga was initially either open to the possibility that Anderson was Anastasia or unable to make up her mind. needs direct attribution. who said this?
 * She told her biographer, "I never received any such telegram." Who is this biographer, has been mentioned before, would be good to have a name.
 * In 1951, former officers and members of the Akhtyrsky Regiment gathered at Olga's home to celebrate the 300th anniversary of its foundation, and she became the patroness of the Association of Russian Cadets of Toronto A bit clumsy, needs to be rephrased to clarify that it was the anniversary of the regiment.
 * Overall, the article could do with some pruning and copy-editing for concisenss and clarity. Try reading it out aloud to see where the prose could be improved.
 * 1) It is factually accurateand verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Nicholas II, however, had already been assassinated and the family assumed, correctly, that his wife and children had also been killed.  This statement needs a cite. How is it known that they assumed this?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * A few weasel or POV words, noted above
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I consider that the article is sufficiently improved to merit Good Article status. Congratulations and thanks for all of your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I consider that the article is sufficiently improved to merit Good Article status. Congratulations and thanks for all of your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Changes made. I have not changed "Conceivably, Olga..." because all three sources consider it a possibility, so it would appear to be the consensus scholarly view. The most repetitive part of the article is the section on Anna Anderson, but this sub-topic was contentious in the past (long edit wars on the AA article over it). So, it is lengthy and detailed in an effort to stave off any complaints about the content. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)