Talk:Anna Anderson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured articleAnna Anderson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 2, 2010.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 17, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
November 3, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 10, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
April 2, 2010Today's featured articleMain Page
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 12, 2018, and February 12, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Sources without Dates or Identifiers[edit]

Hi, I've noticed several sources without any identifying years, DOIs, ISBNs, etc. to aid in finding the original sources or mirrors of them. Would anyone still watching this page be able to help in updating the source list to match the standards? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any. If you mean the short citations, the full reference is in the References section. DrKay (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"D'oh" moment, gotten too used to single reference sections, and having pages and so forth integrated into Reference sections instead of having them as a secondary section. Sorry, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just an additional note, there seem to be a bit of a mix of Footnoting, and Referencing, happening in the "Notes" section. Looking at notes 4, 8, 10 for example, with actual references being cited (including books, and websites). Just seems a bit off having them mixed with the specific page numberings especially under a "Notes" section. Sorry if I seem a bit disruptive, but I'm happy to have a look into perhaps finding a better referencing system to fix this if that would help, while keeping the specific page numbering kept. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the DNA statement correct?[edit]

Article says, "Instead, Anderson's mitochondrial DNA matched that of Karl Maucher, a great-nephew of Franziska Schanzkowska.[8] Most scientists, historians and journalists who have discussed the case accept that Anderson and Schanzkowska were the same person.[9]"

Did the editor mean to say that the mitochondrial DNA of Anderson is exactly the same as that of Karl Maucher? If so, what is the relationship or range of relationship implied? Does it imply lineal descent on one side? Or they both had the same grandmother, or what? (PeacePeace (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, it is correct. People with the same maternal ancestry have matching mitochondrial DNA. Because Maucher's maternal grandmother and Schanzkowska were sisters, they have the same mitochondrial DNA. Schanzowska's mother is Maucher's maternal great-grandmother. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]