Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Oleg the Wise/1

Oleg the Wise

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Popular culture section unsourced. One CN tag and two primary source tags. In addition, several statements are uncited or have footnotes referring to primary sources. Mellk (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the primary sources with secondary sources accordingly. Please let me know if these qualify; I've never done this before 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 02:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I finished pop culture section and removed info marked with cn tag (my instict that an absence of something difficult to cite; maybe some else find cite for it). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improvements. We can definitely cite Shikanov and Pashuto. I still see a few citations that refer to primary sources, for example: The Primary Chronicle and other Kievan sources place Oleg's grave in Kiev, while Novgorodian sources identify a funerary barrow in Ladoga as Oleg's final resting place. Mellk (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: It's OK for articles to cite primary sources, as long as they aren't promotional or undue. Were there any particular passages that you were concerned the use a primary source to verify the information? Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: You are correct, but I feel that there is a bit of original research going on with some of the statements not fully supported. Take for example the following:
- The earliest and most believable version seems to have been preserved in the Novgorod First Chronicle, which says that Oleg departed "overseas" (i.e., to Scandinavia) and was buried there.
- The text of the Schechter Letter is given at Golb 106–121. It is cited herein by folio and line (e.g. SL Fol. x:x)
- SL Fol. 2r, 15–16; 17. The author of the letter describes Khazaria as "our land". SL Fol. 1r:19, 2v:15,20.
For the following, there is also a hidden note that says: his assertion doesn't hold water, see my refs below.
- No less a personage than Mikhail Artamonov declared the manuscripts' authenticity beyond question. Artamonov 12. Nonetheless, other scholars expressed scepticism about its account, due in large part to its contradiction of the Primary Chronicle. E.g., Gregoire 242–248, 255–266; Dunlop 161. Anatoli Novoseltsev, noting the discrepancy, admits the document's authenticity but declares that the author "displaces the real historical facts rather freely." Novoseltsev 216–218. Brutskus asserted that HLGW was in fact another name for Igor. Brutskus 30–31. Mosin proposed that HLGW was a different person from Oleg and was an independent prince in Tmutarakan; the existence of an independent Rus' state in Tmutarakan in the first half of the tenth century is rejected by virtually all modern scholars. Mosin 309–325; cf. Zuckerman 258.
Mellk (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]