Wikipedia:Peer review/Russian interregnum of 1825/archive1

Russian interregnum of 1825

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I love these questions: "why do you want to work for Big Corp, Inc.?". Right now, dear Corporation, I want you to work for me! All comments are welcome. Warning: it's a long article and perhaps heavy in the "background" and "aftermath" sections.

Some notes on the use of sources: where possible I tried using the earliest reliable secondary source, preferably in English. Thus there's a lot of references to Korff's 1857 book; I could just as well cite contemporary sources but since they derive the facts (not opinions) from the same 1857 source, it takes precedence. Where Korff omits important facts, a later RS comes in etc. Opinions and judgements, on the contrary, are quoted to 20th century sources. As for citing various conspiracy theories listed in "Historiography" section, the question is still open.

Thanks, NVO (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is quite interesting and generally well done, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The alt text does not really meet WP:ALT. The alt text is NOT supposed to identify the person in the image, just describe him or her, but most of the current alt texts identify the person (the job of the caption). Also one image seems to be missing alt text all together. See the alt text tool in the upper right corner.
• The automated tips also finds some words that use both American and British English spellings - pick one and stick with it.
• While I understand the rationale to use the Korff reference as the primary source for the article, there may be those who disagree with this at FAC. WP:RS says in part However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field.
• There are many places in the article where there are small typos or missing words or other places that need polished. I will try to point some out here (not a complete list):
  • Would it make sense to identify the author of the quotation in The "Imperial secret involving the very existence of the Empire" [1] backfired with a dynastic crisis that placed the whole House of Romanov at peril.?
  • Missing word? Military governor Mikhail Miloradovich persuaded [the?] hesitant Nicholas to pledge allegiance to Constantine, who then lived in Warsaw as the viceroy of Poland.
  • Make clearer it is the Times of London here? As The Times observed, the Russian Empire had "two self-denying Emperors and no active ruler".[3]
  • Just plain awkward sentence Confusion and irrationality of the interregnum prompted historians and fiction authors to challenge the mainstream version of events outlined in Modest von Korff's Accession of Nicholas I (1857).
  • I would refer to Juliane by that name throughout. As it is, calling her Anna is confusing: Constantine and his legitimate wife Juliane of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, baptised in Orthodoxy as Anna, separated in 1799. then she is referred to as Juliane in the next two sentences, then at the start of the next paragraph and sentence she is referred to as Anna, which is just confusing. Constantine divorced Anna [Juliane?] in absentia on April 2...
  • Missing word? [Their?] Love affair that began in 1815 compelled Constantine to divorce Juliane and marry Joanna.[5]
  • I think the usual idion is "cut out of the loop" not this: Alexander's usual speechwriter Mikhail Speransky was cut off the loop.[14]
  • Verb tense? could not for cannot here? Filaret feared that a document locked in Moscow cannot influence the transfer of power to the successor, which would normally take place in Saint Petersburg, and objected to Alexander.
  • I would make clearer that these were all in St Petersburg: The tsar reluctantly agreed and ordered Golitsyn to make three copies and deposit them in sealed envelopes in the Synod, the Senate and the State Council.[15] Provide context to the reader
  • Another unclear sentence Riasanovsky analyzed the claims that Alexander deliberately framed Nicholas into a legal trap, and concluded that there is no evidence of foul play.[23] I am really not sure what this means
  • Slid (not slided) in After the end of the Napoleonic Wars the Russian economy, ravaged by the Continental System[24] and Napoleon's invasion, slided into a continuous economic crisis.
  • Quotations often read better if they are attributed and put into context - for example, "This was more than a crisis: it was total bankruptcy."[26]
  • Should south and north be capitalized here? I would also make it clearer which Union is meant In January 1821 internal conflicts between the radical South and the aristocratic North led to the dissolution of the Union [of Prosperity].[37]
  • Missing words [On?] September 13 [O.S. September 1], 1825[45] Alexander left Saint Petersburg to accompany [the?] ailing Empress Elizabeth to spa treatment in Taganrog, then a "rather agreeable town" with eight to nine thousand inhabitants.[46] Golitsyn pleaded [with?] Alexander to publish the secret manifest of 1823 but the emperor refused: "Let us rely on God. He will know how to order things better than us mortals."[47] I also think it would help to somehow locate Taganrog in a phrase
  • More missing words? Their relations [had?] considerably improved since the death of Alexander's illegitimate daughter Sophie Naryshkina in June 1824.[50] [Their?] Reunion in Taganrog, according to Volkonsky, became the couple's second honeymoon[49]
  • Needs a ref The disease consumed Alexander and on November 29 [O.S. November 17] it seemed that he was in terminal agony. Only then did Diebitsch and Volkonsky notify the court in Saint Peterburg of the inevitable.
  • Word choice? At the moment of Alexander's demise, Constantine and Michael stayed [were?] in Warsaw,[59] [and?] Nicholas and Empress Maria in Saint Petersburg.[60]
  • Does this follow WP:ITALIC? "Diebitsch promptly dispatched a courier to His Majesty Emperor Constantine in Warsaw; ..."
• OK, I will stop there - try and get someone to copyedit this.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I fixed some of the simpler omissions and removed pr paraphrased some of the quotes. As for the use of the 1857 source, you might be right, but I'm not aware of a comprehensive work on the same subject apart from Korff and Schilder (1890s). Subsequent research brought very few new hard facts. NVO (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)