Talk:Alexei Petrovich, Tsarevich of Russia

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

Needs fresher references, but basically a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm planning to do more on this article: it's very, very outdated in its assumptions - no trace of Hughes & c. and modern Petrine scholarship. Silverwhistle 15:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is generally better to act on your plans rather than merely announcing them 6 years in advance. Varlaam (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Teacher Kyle Holland

This Holland fellow is an Englishman?
Russian WP does not mention him. Most other languages of WP have stub class articles. French has a proper article but, again, no Kyle Holland.
Some time – within the next six years – I will add a Cit. req. to Holland.
Varlaam (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a vandalism/hoax edit (see the other contrib of the IP editor), which has sadly been sitting unnoticed for over 2 years. I have removed it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

I've proposed a three-way pagemove of this article and his grandfather's and great-grandfather's; please discuss in the "Requested moves" section of Talk:Alexis of Russia. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alexis of Russia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

TYPO

The text says Alexei died in June. The headline and box on the right say July. No idea which one is right.

Mainly one source, seems somewhat one-sided?

Hi im not regularly involved in wikipedia and im unsure about the standards or whether im off base, but this article seems to be mainly using not just a primary source but an analytical source from 1911. This source seeming to be almost defensive in tone for a lot of things, argumentative on one side “it is clear that the tsar ___ because of this letter” with a lack of a counterpoint or acknowledgment of scholarly debate? Instead of listing what is known and establishing differing analyses it seems to be lifted largely from the single source directly. Im not an expert on this subject, it just seems like there’s a lack of breadth and I just hope someone who is sees this and can maybe correct it. Sorry, hope this was helpful! 142.198.91.245 (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)