Talk:Maria Rasputin

message: This is a nice page, I congratulate WikiProject Russia on fine work.  18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice Page!

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  
*1 (a) and (b) Prose and Structure:
:#She described how Maria, "a tall girl in a gymnasium frock" came in and was greeted by society ladies calling her by the pet names "Mara" and "Marochka" and extending their hands to her. Possible run-on sentence. There should be a comma after the quote, and a the whole sentence reads kind of weirdly. 
:#She was married at one point to a man named Gregory Bernadsky, whom she married in 1940.  This is an odd sentence. Consider rewording it.
:#Maria told her four grandchildren that their infamous great-grandfather was a "simple man with a big heart and strong spiritual power, who loved Russia, God, and the Tsar," her granddaughter Laurence Huot-Solovieff, the daughter of Maria's daughter Tatyana, recalled in 2005. Again, this is a hard sentence to read.
:#The majority of the article is a bunch of quotes from a text. While nice, it makes the article somewhat difficult to read, and it suggests poor writing style. Consider integrating the text by rewording the quotes (while still attributing it to the book from whence it came). This might be easier to read. This is a personal preference, and I don't like it. This is why I fail the article on structure.
*2 (a) and (b) References:
:#You should cite her birthdate and birth name. The fact that there are no citations in introduction I find a bit disconcerting.
:#whom Rasputin called "The Little One." -- Needs a source.
:#Soloviev and Maria eventually emigrated to Paris, where Soloviev worked in an automobile factory and later died of tuberculosis in 1926.  -- This definitely needs a citation.
:# Remember that there should be no spaces after the punctuation before the citation. Scan the article again and check it out, removing whitespace where appropriate.
Since I can tell that a lot of hard work has gone into the article and I think that my suggestions can be implemented fairly readily, I am going to put the GA on hold for now. Fix it up and post a message here that you have done so. I'll add the article to my watchlist and pass it as soon as the points above are addressed. Thanks and good luck! –King Bee (T • C) 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've fixed the items you wanted addressed. Featured Article reviewers have been discouraging use of the citations in the introduction. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. --Bookworm857158367 21:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really! I'm really surprised by that. Can you send me a link to what you're talking about? That seems really odd to me. I'll take a look at the article and reassess its status, then get back to you. –King Bee (T • C) 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the feedback I got during the review process for my Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia article that just passed FA. I'm not sure if it's personal preference or if it's an established guideline.--Bookworm857158367 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very interesting. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I see you have updated the article quite a bit, and I like what you've done. I'll pass the article now. Good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by King Bee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the trouble to review and pass it. --Bookworm857158367 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No trouble at all. It was a pleasure working with you. Thanks for getting everything done so fast! I noticed the article was sitting around on WP:GAC forever, so I thought I'd help you out. Good work again! –King Bee (T • C) 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: ::Is her birthdate in the Old Style or New Style? In 1898, the Julian Calendar was 12 days behind the Gregorian.--jeanne (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Style or New Style?

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of May 18, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. 
After holding the article for a week and notifying the primary editor and interested projects no work was done, as such I am delisting from GA.  The review can be found here.  H1nkles (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Rasputindaughtercropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: This guy, BeenAroundAWhile, deleted something, asks for a citation, but does not know how to create the template and is too lazy to look for himself. He did not add the information, which was easy to find. In my point of view there are too many of those.Taksen (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lazy Wikipedian

message: Why is his book listed as a source and cited within the article if the book is fictional, something it even says within the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.20.212 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Alexander