Talk:Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia

Request unprotection?

This page has been protected for the past two weeks. No discussion has occurred on the issues at all in the talk page. Are the issues being resolved and the disputed parties moving towards discussion? If there are no objections, I will request unprotection for all the other users that wish to edit. Warring users should be dealt with through other means. Calwatch 00:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

portrait connection to cinema?

The official portrait of HIH Olga on the article page.... it is strikingly similar to the dress that "Anastasia" wore in the final scene of the animated remake of Anastasia (voiced by Meg Ryan)... I have heard the film producers did research extensively the aspects of the Imperial Russian dress, culture, and the stories of Anna Anderson. But does the Duchess' dress match the one in the article photo??? If you need to see the picture of the animated-Anastasia dress, I bet you could find it on a related website...

Thanks

AJ24 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Olga

The photo in the article is of Olga Nikolaevna, not Olga Alexandrovna.

The problem has been corrected, thank you for the notification. -- AJ24 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kulikovsky articles: to be delayed

The full names of Nikolai, Tikhon, and Juri Kulikovsky highlighted in red (article to-be), are misrepresented. The full, styled names of the three are:

• Colonel Nikolai Alexandrovich Kulikovsky
• (Count) Tikhon Nikolaevich Kulikovsky-Romanoff
• (Count) Juri Nikolaevich Kulikovsky-Romanoff

Until the actual full name (with correct title or usage) can be confirmed, I ask users not to create the red highlighting. If an article were written under those names they would be incorrect. -- AJ24 20:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, was her second marriage morganatic? (So the Kulikovsky-Romanoffs wouldn't have a claim to the Russian Throne). Indisciplined 16:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(Thanks to AJ24 for confirming the above. Should this fact be mentioned somewhere in the article? Indisciplined 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC) )

Ballerup in Danmark

Il serait peur-être intéressant de nommer "Ballerup-DK" où Olga vecu 18 ans ,et beaucoup de ses motifs représenta cette région, et qui possède (son musée) plus de 100 oeuvres de l'artiste. Je possède une très belle aquarelle de Olga, que je compte mettre sur Commons quand j'aurai fait une photo suffisante. --217.157.170.125 19:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not considered the last reigning member of the House of Romanov

Olga Alexandrovna never "reigned" so therefore she cannot be considered the last reigning member of the House of Romanov. I have deleted that phrase. Susan/sef127 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Last surviving grandchild of Alexander II

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna was not the last surviving granchild of Emperor Alexander II. His grandson George, Count of Merenberg died in 1965, Countess Olga of Merenberg died in 1983. Prince Alexander Bariatinsky died in 1992. Prince Alexander Yurievsky died in 1988. All of them were granchildren of Alexander II and Princess Ekaterina Yurievskaya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.225.108 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

She was, however, the last surviving granchild of Emperor Alexander II by his wife, Empress Maria Alexandrovna. I made this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.225.108 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvements needed

The article is currently suffocated by lengthy and sometimes irrelevant quotations. I think the quotations that are relevant to the subject should be moved into the prose of the text and not as separate quote sections like they are now. There are several more issues in the text which I am going to address and would like to discuss with those interested in the future of this article:

• Minimizing lengthy quotations
• Re-title the superfluous subtitles (i.e. The Fall of the House of Romanov)
• Reference every item of information in need of referencing with inline citations from 3 literary sources
• Determine whether the many photographs are usable in the article per Wikipedia's fair use policies
• Significant edit of the prose
• Generally put the article in accordance with Wikipedia's Good Article Criteria

Thanks. -- AJ24 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia/GA1. 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? Y

   moved into a 200-room house on Sergievskaya street house or mansion or even palace? Y

   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. Y

   In the adjacent villages, she subsidized the village school out of her own pocket, plural villages, then singular? Y

   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.Y

   Just a few days later, World War I erupted erupted is not a neutral word. Y

   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. Y

   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. Y

   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.Y

2. 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?Y

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A few weasel or POV words, noted above

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. 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)

Anna Anderson

Anna Anderson section is unnecessary. Anderson has a long and very good article of her own to begin with. In the scope of the eventful life of Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna her brief meetings with Anna Anderson amount to no more than a side note. To prove this point I have eliminated the section and expanded other more important aspects of Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna’s life. Olga, no Anna Anderson, should be the central and only subject of the article. --Miguelemejia (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored that section because a substantial portion of Olga's notability comes through Anderson: she's mentioned in all the Anderson works. I've also restored the images you removed as they have full source, author, date and license details, which the files you added lacked. The image requirements for featured articles are stricter than the inclusion criteria for commons. There were a number of typos and grammatical mistakes in the lead, so I have also restored the previous one. DrKay (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think your work in this article has been outstanding and I praised you for that. My intention has only been to improve and complement what has already been done. However, in the Anna Anderson case you have a mistaken point of view, I belive. Grand Duchess Olga notability comes as any person of Royal birth on that fact, her royal birth nor in any association with particular individual or in a woman who she only saw briefly twice in her life. As I stated before, Anna Anderson's case amount to no more than a side note in Olga's life. Understandably books on Anderson mention the Grand Duchess as she was one of only two members of the Romanov family who she met. This is Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna's article nor Anderson. In Anderson excellent article on Wikipedia, to which you have also make important contributions, you don't see A Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna section. Why then have a Anna Anderson section here? Regarding the photos, the ones I added fulfilled Wikipedia standards. Typos and grammatical mistakes in the lead can be corrected. There are factual mistakes in the one you have restored.--Miguelemejia (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are problems with the pictures. For example, File:Grand Duchess Olga with her second husband and their two sons.JPG is a private family photograph that has been scanned from a book (look closely and you can see the lines of type bleeding through from the reverse page). If this was first published in the authorised biography of 1964, which was fully copyrighted, then copyright on the image would not expire until 95 years after the publication date, i.e. 31 December 2059. We need more information than given on the file page to determine whether the image is copyrighted or not. All the images you added suffer similar problems. DrKay (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Anna Anderson section should not be restored. She already has a feature article of her own, in which just a very brief mention of her association with Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna is made. Olga's notability certainly does not come through Anderson. Today she is remembered as The Last Grand Duchess from Imperial Russia, sister of Nicholas II. That fact does not imply that we should have a Nicholas II's section even though any biography on her talks at length about her brother. A simple mention of Olga's involvement in the Anna Anderson's case is enough. --Miguelemejia (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The material is relevant, sourced, and covered with due weight. DrKay (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources and balance are no substitute for worthy reason to keep section. --Miguelemejia (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"per talk" as an edit summary doesn't cut it. I clearly explained why I was removing the duplicated links and merging the duplicated references. You chose to ignore those comments completely and have not mentioned them at all on the talk page or in edit summaries or explained why you are reverting them. DrKay (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested in Byzantine discussions about every little detail (i.e. Maria Feodorovna vs Marie Feodorovna ). The main point of disagreement remains the Anna Anderson section. I have counterpoint your point of view, but you have chosen to ignore my explanations rushing to revert my version. That’s neither a solution nor should be the final word on the subject.--Miguelemejia (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, it is the prior version of the article that has consensus. You should restore the previous version until consensus changes to your preferred version. You are clearly not examining or considering my edits or edit summaries because you are blindly reverting all my changes, including obvious corrections to the style and grammar, and then claiming that the edits are "without explanations"[1], which is obviously untrue. The major edits are explained on the talk page and by edit summaries.

The points that I have not discussed should be obvious and not require explanation, but as you insist they are without explanation, I shall explain:

1. "She run the household" is obviously wrong grammatically.
2. Per WP:CITEFOOT, the citation identifiers should come immediately after punctuation not with a space between them and the preceding punctuation.
3. Per WP:PUNC, straight quote marks should be used in preference to curly ones.
4. The repetition of "Hall, p. 58" three times in a row, "Beeche, p. 116" and other references is unnecessary and unprofessional. Duplicate references should be merged by using the "ref name" system.

The fact that you are consistently and constantly ignoring all my edit summaries and reverting all my edits no matter how minor, even breaking the three revert rule to do so, demonstrates that you are reverting solely out of malicious spite because of personal hatred and an overwhelming desire to eliminate my corrections at any cost. DrKay (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

All my edits are well intended and my only objective has been to improve this article. However you have taken the dispute over the Anna Anderson section as something personal. You have chosen to ignore my contributions and revert my work. In the case of the citations proving that the The Martemianoff's apartment was above a barbershop rather than a beauty salon, you did not correct the citations innocently as you claimed, but rather reverted my edits. You deleted the references provided reverting my work.--Miguelemejia (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your work because it is wrong. "She run the household" is bad english and duplicate references should be merged. You are dodging the issues by refusing to discuss why you are reverting my edits, that are clearly corrections. You have deliberately edit-warred to censor the article and deliberately reverted my minor edits without explanation or reason. DrKay (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

The legacy section has its problems. On one hand is goes too long. Olga's legacy as an artist is not memorable. A skilful amateur artist at her best, she was certainly no Picazo. The lengthy quotations also must be minimized. Perhaps something else regarding today's view on her can be added or information on Olga's descendants--Miguelemejia (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the quotations or discussing her art. DrKay (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

quotations should be shorten and additional information regarding other aspects of her legacy added--Miguelemejia (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the length of the quotations. DrKay (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

716 Gerrard Street East

05 Dec 2012: Add 716 to the Gerrard Street address where she died. Noted here: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/romanovs/grandduchess01.html The building still stands with apartments on top and Dragonair Travel & Tours at the street level according to Google Maps. This matches the old newspaper photo on the angelfire site. ~EF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.36.54 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I also note that at that site an eye-witness and acquaintance is quoted as saying "I had heard that she was ill, so my friend Erma Large and I drove into Toronto to see her. She was living over a hairdressing salon." The salon was run by the Martemianoff's daughter Galina [2]. You can also see Dragontours here, with a beauty/hair design/make-up shop still next door at 718, which is the same view you can see on google street view. DrKay (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Kulikovsky-Romanov

• http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2013/20130111_enromanov.html
• http://www.royalhistorian.com/from-st-petersburg-to-toronto-the-life-of-grand-duchess-olga-alexandrovna-1882-1960/
• https://www.irishtimes.com/news/dispute-over-place-of-burial-keeps-royal-skeletons-rattling-1.129206
• http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/leonid-kulikovsky-greatgrandson-of-a-russian-tsar-20151210-gll3pf.html
• https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/tsar-heir-dies-an-nt-pauper-ng-ya-133236
• http://www.express.co.uk/news/history/621927/Russia-long-lost-royal-family-Kulikovsky-Tsar-Katherine-Australia-old-man-walking-dog-dead
• https://books.google.com/books?id=g_Y5NmOj8LkC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Kulikovsky
• https://books.google.com/books?id=YIhU7RWPFBYC&pg=PT430&lpg=PT430&dq=Kulikovsky
• https://books.google.com/books?id=dCEGxF4i1L8C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=Kulikovsky
• http://ahwilkens.com/grand-duchess-olga-back-on-the-block/
• http://www.artnet.com/artists/grand-duchess-olga-alexandrovna/tikhon-kulikovsky-as-kings-guard-at-amalienborg-TUkNhdFbGEjKTOj8kZXLhQ2
• http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/library/docs/holy_trinity_sem_collections_biographies_english.pdf
• http://orthodoxcanada.ca/Grand_Duchess_Olga_Alexandrovna_Kulikovskaya
• https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=4175
• http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=2094.225
• 1532/9: Olga Alexandrovna: The artist's son, two years old Tihon Kulikovsky, outside the house in Novo-Minskaya. 1919. Signed Olga. Gouache and watercolour. 22 x 27 cm.
• https://au.linkedin.com/in/arch-tikhon-romanov-610643123
• https://www.geni.com/people/Livia-Sebesteyn/6000000019880192149
• https://www.nature.com/ng/wilma/v12n4.867853248.html
• http://www.thepeerage.com/p6579.htm
• https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/kulikovsky.html
• https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/russian-royalty-front-row-from.html
• https://fineartamerica.com/featured/russian-royalty-front-row-from-left-everett.html
• https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=7404214
• http://www.swedenmark.eu/familygroup.php?familyID=F9198
• https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=164978830
• https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=155334244
• https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=155629125
• https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=vcsr&GSvcid=355087
• https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Grand-Duchess-Olga-Alexandrovna/72B3EA7E618B3552/AuctionResults
• http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/grand-duchess-olga-1882-1960-four-scenes-of-6077932-details.aspx
• Grand Duchess Olga (1882-1960) Lots 57-61 - Christie's
• https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/43357399_photographs-guri-and-tihkon-nikolaevich-kulikovsky
• Xenia Jones (born Kulikovsky) was born on month day 1941, to Guri Nikolaevich Kulikovsky and Ruth Kulikovsky (born Schwartz). Guri was born in 1919. Ruth was born in 1921. Xenia had 2 brothers: Leonid Kulikovsky and one other sibling. Xenia married Ralph Jones. They had one child. Xenia married Finn Larsen. They had 2 children: Vivian Larsen and one other child. Xenia married first name Aage. They had one child. Xenia passed away.
• Xenia Kulikovsky Nielsen
• Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060412195312/http://www.si.edu/oahp/olga/ to http://www.si.edu/oahp/olga/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101221121530/http://rusmuseum.ru/eng/exhib/lenta/exhibition2007/exhibition203/ to http://www.rusmuseum.ru/eng/exhib/lenta/exhibition2007/exhibition203/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512070859/http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/news/518news.html to http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/news/518news.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212120008/http://www.ballerupmuseum.dk/eng to http://www.ballerupmuseum.dk/eng

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

ENGVAR

I see this article was written in British English ("jewellery"). Per MOS:RETAIN it ought to have been kept in this dialect unless there was a special reason to change it. It currently appears to be in a mixture of both dialects, which looks a bit weird. How did it pass through the TFA process like this? --John (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't promoted in that state, which you'd have seen if you'd bothered to look. Look at the guideline: MOS:TIES supersedes MOS:RETAIN. DrKay (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding the talk page, it's so much better than the revert button. So you're claiming the article as Canadian because she lived the last 12 years of her life there? Bit of a stretch. I personally oppose it. What do others think? My main point was that the article cannot appear on the main page or even continue to be a FA with a mixture of spelling variants in it. --John (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have a mixture of spelling variants. DrKay (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I've posted at this talk page more often than any other editor[3]. You found the revert button, misusing rollback in the process[4]. The article was expanded and promoted to FA with Canadian spelling, as explained on the featured article nomination page[5]. Insisting on British English or avoiding Canadian English is not one of the featured article criteria. Even tThe diff you linked to above is in Canadian English [not in British English] (note: "realized" and "organization" ["neighboring" and "honor"])[6]. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Amended DrKay (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Stating something at a peer review is not a consensus to change the spelling dialect. Having consistent spelling is very much a FA criterion. --John (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The spelling is consistent. And the variety is not changed. Under MOS:RETAIN, the variety should remain Canadian unless there is a strong argument to change it, which there isn't. DrKay (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we seem to be at cross purposes here. Does anybody else have an opinion? We can't really run it like this or keep it featured. There are some other problems too. John (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to explain why it can't retain the original Canadian spelling and why it should change from Canadian to British spelling. DrKay (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

See my post of 21:32, 1 February 2018. It's right at the top of this section. --John (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

See my post of 14:23, 3 February 2018. The diff you provided shows that the article was written in Canadian English not British [does not show that the article was written in British English]. DrKay (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Amended DrKay (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed not. As "jewellery" is British English. --John (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It is also Canadian, as is "realized" and "organization"; "neighboring" and "honor", which you will also see in that diff are not British. If MOS:RETAIN is so important to you, the very first diff of this page: 13 September 2004 is uniformly American spelling: "traveled", "kilometers", "honor" and in mdy dates. The first dmy date is introduced 9 March 2006 and the first British spelling introduced is 10 July 2006: "jewellery". The expansion for the FAC nomination [in 2009–10] standardized everything as Canadian spelling and dmy dates, per MOS:TIES. Under MOS:RETAIN, the article should use American spelling and mdy dates. DrKay (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Amended DrKay (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You now seem thoroughly confused. American spelling does not use "jewellery" at all, and it is uncommon in Canadian. --John (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You provided a diff which shows an article containing the words "jewellery", "realized", "organization", "neighboring" and "honor". That indicates one word is spelled in the British way and all others in the American way. The way to resolve that discrepancy is to change jewellery to jewelry not to change the other four to your favored variety. The article was spelled the American way until the word "jewellery" was introduced. You must now choose between retaining the original and majority American spelling or agreeing with MOS:TIES that the article should be Canadian. DrKay (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

My favoured variety? I don't give a flying fuck which variety the article uses. But it has to use one, not two. Otherwise it can't be a featured article. --John (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Canadian English uses both. Here is a Globe and Mail article using jewellery. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Article quality

• Two years later, as her health deteriorated, Olga moved with devoted friends to a small apartment in East Toronto. "Devoted friends" is purple prose. Not the right tone for here.
• She was born in the purple, i.e. during her father's reign, on 13 June 1882 in the Peterhof Palace, west of central Saint Petersburg. We do not italicise "i.e."
• Olga and her siblings, however, were not accustomed to a lavish early lifestyle. Conditions in the nursery were modest, even Spartan.[2] They slept on hard camp beds, rose at dawn, washed in cold water, and ate a simple porridge for breakfast. This is also purple prose. Would be better just to say "Conditions in the nursery were modest, even Spartan.[2] They slept on hard camp beds, rose at dawn, washed in cold water, and ate porridge for breakfast."

• All the biographers of Alexander's children make a point of this, and Wikipedia should follow the sources. DrKay (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• The carriage was torn open; the heavy iron roof caved in, and the wheels and floor of the car were sliced off. The Tsar crawled out from beneath the crushed roof, and held it up with "a Herculean effort" so that the others could escape. More purple prose; also, it's likely this story didn't actually take place. We should not report it in Wikipedia's voice.

• The sources used in the article do not qualify this story. There are many stories of Alexander's unusual physical strength but there aren't any that I'm aware of saying it was puffery. DrKay (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Count Sergei Witte and the Twilight of Imperial Russia: A Biography, p32 calls it "an unfounded story", and puts it on a par with the crash being caused by revolutionaries. --John (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Although Christmas and Easter were times of celebration and extravagance, Lent was strictly observed... Although?
• Together, the three frequently went on hikes within the Gatchina forests... Within?
• The emotional impact on Olga, aged only 12, was traumatic... Argh!
• The couple initially lived with her in laws "In-laws" I think.
• It was not an harmonious arrangement "A harmonious"
• ...showered her daughter-in-law with gifts... Purple prose.

We don't need to overlink France or Italy. That's only the first third of the article. I'm sure there is more but I have to take a break for now. --John (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is now more-or-less ok to go. I'm still struggling with Olga and her siblings, however, were not accustomed to a lavish early lifestyle. Conditions in the nursery were modest, even Spartan.[2] They slept on hard camp beds, rose at dawn, washed in cold water, and ate a simple porridge for breakfast. "However" constructions are best avoided where possible as they give too much weight to the clause that follows. --John (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Crimea" vs. "The Crimea"

Why is the definite article sometimes used? I see that the Crimea article does not use it but this one does. Is the rule to say "the Crimea" when discussing events of the early 20th Century? TypoBoy (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Nobody has responded. I suspect that the definite-article style was copied thoughtlessly from old sources. I have made this change. TypoBoy (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)