You decided to write a research paper on the idea that Catherine the Great of Russia was the greatest monarch that ever lived. Y
ou have sources from the Catherine the Great Historical Society, articles from the Russian newspaper and handouts from The Hermitage, the art museum that Catherine the Great created. Pitfalls in credibility?
The main problem with this research would be the fact that it might not be objective enough. The sources that you have gathered are likely to state that Catherine the Great was the greatest monarch that ever lived, because they are all linked to her in some positive way. In order for the research to be trustworthy, it would need to argue the negative side as well. Otherwise, the analysis would be too biased.
It seems to me that the research is not objective enough. The sources you used seem to give information only from the Russian side. Sources from a different point of view should be consulted; let's remember that history is written in most cases by the ones who are, or were, in charge. Maybe for Russian history Catherine the Great was really the best monarch that ever lived, but for countries that surrounded Russia she was not.
My suggestion si to determine the characteristics of a great monarch then, based on those characteristics, compare Catherine the Great with other monarchs. In that way your arguments will be solid and won't lack of credibility.
