Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Clementina in topic PGA review
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is a good article. This means the community feels it is written well. |
 | A fact from Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 July 2010. |  |
 | This article contains a translation of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia from en.wikipedia. |
No stub type?
changeStrange? --TheSneakyRaccoon (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article, while still in need of expansion, is big enough that it is not considered a "stub". ···Katerenka (討論) 11:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, now makes perfect sense, thank you, Katerenka. --TheSneakyRaccoon (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
PGA review
change- "In January 2008, Russian scientists found the remains of a young boy and woman near Yekaterinburg in August 2007." - Only one date is possible.
Fixed How could I have missed that? o_O Sorry - the original sentence was "In January 2008, Russian scientists announced that the charred remains of a young boy and a young woman found near Ekaterinburg in August 2007 were most likely those of the thirteen-year-old Tsarevich and one of the four Romanov grand duchesses", but things got a little mixed up in the simplifying process. —Clementina talk
- "During World War I Anastasia and her sister Maria visited soldiers that were hurt at a hospital at Tsarskoye Selo." Soldiers that were hurt at a hospital - sounds really weird. Sounds like soldiers are things...and the they got hurt in a hospital.
- Fixed Haha, true. ;) Thanks for pointing that out! —Clementina talk
- Things like "The most famous is probably the movie Anastasia in 1956." in the culture section should be referenced.
- Fixed Reworded. —Clementina talk
- Not sure at all, but I think the article still needs some simplification. It's not too hard to read, but there are several passive phrases for example.
- Fixed I've gone ahead and simplified some more. If you see anything else to be simplified and tell it to me, I'll be happy to fix it. :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk
- The references should all be in order at best with the usage of {{Cite web|...}} or {{Cite book|...}} or whatever is needed so it gives an access date, publisher, date and so on. Old sources with accessdates that go back to 2006 should be checked if they still cover the correct things.
- Fixed —Clementina talk
But overall its a nicely written article. I also went ahead and fixed some minor things myself. -Barras (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Done Thank you for your excellent review, dear Barras! :) It's been a great help. Please tell me if there's anything else to fix, and I'll be very happy to do so. Warmly, —Clementina talk 13:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
