Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Anderson/archive2

< 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [1].

Anna Anderson edit

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

A notorious impostor who leapt into a canal to kill herself, ran around naked on a Park Avenue roof, and spent time in an asylum, believed by some to be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (also a featured article). DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported at the last FAC - doing so again. :) This is such an interesting article. If you want a cool story to tell friends, read this FAC! ('Cuz that is why we read FACs.) Awadewit (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Real life commitments got in the way of my adding my support the last time. This is a well-written and engaging article and such a fascinating story. Graham Colm Talk 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment section one daldorf asylum it is stated that she was "admitted to the Elisabeth Hospital in Lützowstrasse." Now my german might be a little rusty but strasse means "street" as far as I am aware. Now that would imply it is a street and that the hospital is "on" lutzowstrasse. Can anyone verify the statement or correct me? Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should we link to "émigré Captain"? it doesn't seem like a standard term. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do find the change in name in reference to anna anderson half way through the article somewhat confusing. I do think that we should use a standard name throughout the article. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the idea of using "Anderson" throughout because it pre-empts the part where she becomes Anderson, weakens her introduction as an unknown, and I prefer the biography to be in chronological order. Perhaps we should consider using "Anna" instead of "Tschaikovsky" and "Anderson", since the first name is common to both identities? DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

  • Cecilie signed a declaration that Tschaikovsky was Anastasia, but her family implied she was suffering from dementia.
    Might "her" and "she" not be confusingly referring to Cecilie or Tschaikovsky? Maybe this can be reworked to be clearer?
  • "... a tuberculous infection of her arm ..."
    Pardon my medical ignorance, what is "a tuberculous infection"?
  • Is there a way to either confirm which is it, or to link it to a general condition to help readers, such as me, who might be unfamiliar with what sort of medical condition it is? Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I can't tell what the illness was in modern terms. The sources just say a tuberculous/tubercular infection complicated by Staphyloccal infection. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it cannot be helped then, but I leave this unstruck in hopes that some other editor can offer suggestions here. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Melnik coached Tschaikovsky with details of life in the imperial family."
    Source?
  • The two sources supporting this clause are given earlier in the sentence: Godl, John (August 1998), "Anastasia: The Unmasking of Anna Anderson", The European Royal History Journal (VI), Oakland: Arturo Beeche: 3–8 and and Gilliard, Pierre (1929) La Fausse Anastasie quoted by von Nidda in his commentary on I, Anastasia, p. 198. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps those two sources (at the ends of the preceding clauses) should be shifted to the end of the sentence instead? I am not too hard on this though. Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She became apathetic and depressed, was declared insane on 19 September 1916, spent time in two lunatic asylums, and went missing in early 1920."
    There seems to be a lot of ideas in this single sentence, perhaps break it into two shorter ones?
  • "Leuchtenberg's son, Dmitri, was completely certain Tschaikovsky was an impostor and was recognized by Felix as his sister, ..."
    Eh, Dimitri "was recognized by Felix as his sister"?
  • "... remained for just over a year."
    "Just" could be misconstrued as a POV-ish context, why not "slightly more than a year" or just "more than a year"?
  • "... peripatetically ..."
    This word might be of a higher level than the average 16–18-year-old student is familiar with (I had to look it up). The way it is used is eloquent, but is it possible to substitute with simpler words to achieve the same result?
  • "... "still unique", though the database of DNA patterns ..."
    By "unique", did Dr Melton mean that he would not have expected such a pattern to match? Or did he mean that such a matching pattern cannot be confused with others? In the latter case, then it should be "... "still unique"; the database of DNA patterns ...", right?
  • I believe she meant that the only sequence in the database that matches that of Anderson was that from Maucher. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other works based on the premise that Anderson was Anastasia, written before the DNA tests, include biographies by Peter Kurth and James Blair Lovell. More recent biographies by John Klier, Robert Massie and Frances Welch that describe her as an impostor were written after the DNA tests proved she was not Anastasia."
    Not sure these require cites (since they are the sources for this article), but if needed, then I guess a footnote pointing this out would suffice.
  • I prefer to avoid adding footnotes unless required to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tend to agree, but am leaving this unstruck in case others have a different opinion. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly, other animated versions utilize parts of Anderson's discredited escape story for inspiration, and include scenes of Anastasia's escape on a cart or characters such as Alexander Tschaikovsky."
    Source(s)?
  • The discredited escape story is discussed in the preceding section, but the scenes described are from a straight-to-video/dvd cartoon that I have never seen. The only way I can deal with objections to this sentence is to remove it. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with the discredited escape story (described earlier), but the description of scenes does need a cite, even if from the video (as a primary source) itself. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll remove it, if only until the specific cartoon is identified. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I find this to be a very well written and comprehensive article that was enjoyable to read. I would support it once the above are cleared up. However, ... (see below) Jappalang (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the clarification of the above and the resolution of the images, I support this article for Featured Article status. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in depth review. DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image grounds Image review:

  • (Amendment) File:Anna1922berlin.jpg: turns out the book this photo was in is still copyrighted in the US. (Previous statement) File:Anna1922berlin (bigger).jpg: The supporting {{PD-US}} is wrong (creation does not equal publishing). If the photo was verifiably sold to a newspaper agency before 1923, then it should be {{PD-1923}}. If not, then the first publishing is 1929 in Gilliard's book. In that case, {{PD-US-1996}} should be used instead.
  • There seems to be a misunderstanding. What I meant was that the Commons copy can be used, but its copyright status in the US should be clarified either to PD-1923 or PD-US-1996, depending on the publication date. Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure they apply since it was not published before 1923 and if published in 1929, then it might still be in copyright in 1999. How about commons:template:PD-old-80? DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crap, I was reminded by your statement to check if Gillard's book and its contents were copyrighted (and renewed) in the US. This turned out to be the result; registration AF3490 on 6 Mar 29, renewed R171272 on 28 May 56, which means the book and contents are copyrighted in US until 2025 (1929 + 95 + 1), according to http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm (works published abroad 1923–77, complying with US formalities). This photo cannot be stored on Wikipedia or Commons as a "free" photo. Since we have File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg (with a modified enlargement of the face), this might not even qualify as fair use identification. Unless there is some critical commentary on this photo (or of the subject's appearance in it), it should be excised. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two points: (1) Gilliard does not hold copyright of the photograph. He can't justifiably renew or claim copyright on something he doesn't own. If necessary, it can be cropped to remove his text, but the text is probably too simple for copyright to apply. (2) File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg is a picture of Schanzkowska. The other is a picture of Anderson. I think the lead picture should be of Anderson. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • US old copyright laws did not care for "true ownership" of a work until the Universal Copyright Convention was established in 1952 (and accepted by US in 1954); the first to register a work's copyright in US actually got the US copyright (several court battles resulted because of this). Gilliard holds the US copyright (by US laws) if he registered it first in US. Even if not, by registering the copyright, Gilliard by proxy registered it for the (unidentified) photographer, which is still valid for US copyright. The point is unless the book disclaims copyright for the photo, it is copyrighted under US law. This would be moot if it can be proven that the photo was published in another foreign source before it ever appeared in Gilliard's book. Jappalang (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know that it was previously published, so I have added a fair-use rationale. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rationale works for me; although it can be argued that placements of it and the image of Schanzkowska could be exchanged in the article, I will leave that for others to debate on. One point though, by registering for US copyright, Gilliard did announce an intent to publish it in US; whether he produced physical copies in the States and whether they are in English are other matters. Thus, I leave this unstruck but considered it cleared. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kszenyija Georgijevna of Russia.jpg: when was this copy of the painting first published? It is certainly not Les Portraits de Philippe A. de László, which can be read here at Internet Archive. UK copyright laws deem publishing as "copies made available to public via sales or other legal means". As László's works are private commisions, they are unpublished until copies (such as this grey-and-white photo) are released. László died in 1937, which means any of his work published during 1923–77 could have their US copyright renewed by the URAA treaty.
  • I never claimed it was published in 1922; I'm using that source to demonstrate that it was painted before 1923. I do not know when it was first published as a photograph or print. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, understood. Regardless, painting (creation) does not equal publication, and we would need a publishing date for that black and white photo (or an earlier reproduction in any form). Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, those four photos are verifiably in the public domain. I would suggest having Rachmanioff's photo, which looks more outstanding than photos of Imperator. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ingrid Bergman and Yul Brynner in Anastasia trailer.jpg: This capture is a copyviolation. The claim that its source (the trailer) did not bear a copyright notice is false; it is prominently displayed at the 0:41–0:47 mark of the trailer, and the copyright was renewed by 20th Century Fox as well.
  • This point will be moot as soon as the file is deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the decision on deletion is taking some time, and the discussion of whether the copyrights of films extend to their trailers appears unresolved [2], I have replaced it with a free image of Bergman: File:Ingrid Bergman 1946.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rowe's shot of Bergman is verifiably in the public domain (taken during his duties as an NPS employee). Note that the Anastasia shots are copyvios because the trailer bore a copyright notice that was renewed, not because of its movie version (I should note that Sabucat is the primary cause for all erroneous uploads of trailer shots with his claim that all trailers before 1968 never carried copyright notice). Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining image, File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg, is verifiably in the public domain if we accept that the two sources pointed out never named the author. File:Botkin,Gleb.jpg is acceptable since no such photo has appeared before its upload here, and the user has stated it is his own work. Jappalang (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • After reading the introduction, I don't really get the point. Perhaps add some context about Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia, and why claiming to be her could be taken seriously. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. I've made an edit which hopefully addresses this [3]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anna_Anderson/archive2&oldid=1088118701"