Talk:Coronation of the Russian monarch/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
As a brief of the article, I find the References section to be a bit cumbersome. May I suggest an alternate citation style? In Citing sources, I would suggest using shortened footnotes since there are many books cited several times in the references. Tea with toast (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me take a look at this over the next few days, and I'll see what I can do with it. Or, perhaps a different editor might want to have a "go" at it; references aren't my strong suit!  But if nobody else addresses it, I'll try to see what I can do in the next few days.  Did you find anything else that needs addressing? - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken a swipe at what you said, though it still needs work; let me know if this is what you had in mind. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

more initial comments

 * 1) I second TWT's opinion on the refs; not just the form but substance and quality. I see absolutely no point in linking to a fansite at tripod.com or angelfire when the topic itself has been professionally researched in and out. Looking at the latter ref in more detail, it appears that you use description of a single event (and a very abridged, incomplete one), as a generalization of any coronation. Not true even for the 19th century (e.g. you write "The new ruler made a great processional entrance on horseback into the city" but remember, the city grew in size and the railway point of entry was within the city - which raises the question how did they tailor the old tradition to new transportation?). I would advise to take any two contemporary detailed reports on coronations (archive.org definitely has it on Alexander I and Alexander III and then there are Schilder's official biographies with abridged descriptions) and do a line-by-line comparison. There are differences (Museum of Moscow Kremlin has a brief roundup of the differences in the regalia  but not the complete events). NVO (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicholas II made the same basic processional entrance as his ancestors; maybe he "detrained" within Moscow and then left to some "assembly point" (as we used to say in the Army) outside the city, from which he ceremonially re-entered it? Whatever the case it seems, from what I've been able to find at least, that the Tsars did execute such a ceremonial entry into the city.  But once I'm able to get back to this article (see below), I'll see what I can learn from the sources you mention.  Or maybe in the meanwhile, some other editor will be able to do so. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Reliance on modern über-partisan sources ("Royal passion bearer": "Contrary to the popular, and widely taught, belief, Tsar Nicholas II cared for the Russian People" Oh really?) in my opinion discredits the article even when the sourced statements are correct and neutral. All this flattery was inevitable 100 years ago, now it's a red flag.
 * I don't think it discredits the article at all, if, as you admit, "the sourced statements are correct and neutral." This article is not describing Nicholas II as a ruler or any of that; it's describing his coronation, and that of his predecessors.  And BTW, not trying to start any fights here, but can you say that Nicholas II didn't care for the Russian people?  On what basis do you say that?  How do you know?  I would agree wholeheartedly that Nicholas did a lousy job as Tsar, but can you say that he didn't care for the Russian people?  That's a huge stretch, and I think there are several prominent biographers of the man--Robert Massie, Dominic Lieven, Edvard Radzinsky, Sergei Oldenburg and others--who would disagree rather sharply with you, while agreeing (as I do) that he wasn't up to the tasks that confronted him (but, as Winston Churchill observed, "pause, and tell me who else was found capable?"  Churchill's comments on Nicholas II are worth reading).  Again, not trying to start any fights, but I felt that needed to be said, here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss the dead tsar, but I suspect you give Massie and Radzinsky a credit they never deserved. Oldenburg and Churchill, men of the good old times, are quite different. NVO (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While I would never place Massie's and Radzinsky's works on a par with Lieven's and Oldenburg's, I don't think they (especially Massie's) were really all that bad: each conducted a fair amount of research; considering that they were writing popular history, not scholarly history, I don't think their finished products were all that poor--again, certainly not on a level with Oldenburg, Lieven or Churchill, but better by far than many other works (pro and anti-Nicholas) I have seen! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the scope of the article? As I understand, it mixes up two related concepts - the secular coronation (коронация) and it's part, religious coronation for tsardom (for the lack of a better word; венчание на царство). They are clearly not the same, just like "wedding" and the sacrament of matrimony aren't. Right now the lead is about a religious ceremony, the text is about the whole package.
 * In Russia, they were the same. As a (now, former) Russian Orthodox Christian for twelve years, myself, I have heard (and participated in) many a discussion on the Orthodox abhorrance of the Western tendency to "compartmentalize" everything.  To an Orthodox Christian (at least one who is tuned in to the more traditional expression of his or her faith), there is no real division between "sacred" and "secular;" all of life, for them, is meant to partake of an Orthodox ethos.  For a Russian Orthodox Christian, there was no "secular" coronation to be distinguished from a "religious" one.  There was one coronation, which was both religious and secular in nature, and that's what I've endeavored to describe here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an extremely idealistic view of the past that none of us can reach ... medieval monastic ethos on one side, Khodynka Field on the other (Catholic painters and Lutheran architects in between). Think of the "average readers", are they ready to comprehend a text written from an unfamiliar idealistic perspective ? NVO (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, not trying to be in any way "contrary," but this article was not written about "medieval monastic ethos," Khodynka Field, Catholic painters, or Lutheran architects. It was written to describe the Russian coronation ceremony, a ceremony that was shaped by a specific Russian Orthodox ideal of what the "true Christian state" (which Tsarist Russia imagined itself to be) and the "true Christian monarch" (which the Tsars imagined themselves to be) should be.  You may assert that the Orthodox ideal of a world that is not compartmentalized between "sacred" and "secular" is "idealistic" and something that "none of us can reach" (I assmue this is what you were driving at with that comment), but there are thousands of Orthodox Christians, past and present, who would beg to differ--and the vast majority of them were not monastics.  You and I might agree that the Tsars never really lived up to this ideal, but that is not the focus of this article--their coronation ceremony is.  But we cannot describe that ceremony without describing the ideal that shaped it, regardless of whether this ideal was ever really achieved by any Russian ruler in the "real world."  The ideal existed, and it shaped the content, wording and ritual of the Russian coronation ceremony.  Thus, it needs to be described, together with its specific conneciton to the ceremony itself, which is precisely what I've tried (and Surtscina has tried; he's the other main editor for this article) to do here.  If anything we've described herein in terms of the ceremony itself is incorrect, we'd welcome a correction (such as the very welcome ones you've already offered).  However, I fail to see why the question of whether the ideal that underlay the ceremony was ever really achievable has anything whatsoever to do with the content of this article, or why it should form a valid objection.  We might legitimately observe, in fact, that the ideal itself might have been eminently "reachable," given the right combination of ruler, ruled and circumstances--at least hypothetically.  Furthermore, in terms of "average readers" and "unfamiliar perspectives," is it not the task of any good encyclopedia to familiarize "average" readers with "unfamiliar perspectives?"  I agree the perspective is unfamiliar, and I've tried to do just as you said--So I guess I'm not understanding what you're driving at, in terms of the contents of this article. - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) List of coronations: Where's Simeon Bekbulatovich? He was crowned, wasn't he?
 * Don't know, but I'll surely try to find out! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Portraits show monarchs at an old age, not the age of coronation. Wherever possible, please check for better fitting alternatives. Commons have portrait of Nicholas I circa. 1823 - much better than Kruger's 1852 portrait used. The coronation albums recommended in #1 seem to have everything, but they are too flattering, doctored beyond recognition.
 * If one can find such portraits, then of course they should be used. Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal, but I'll see what I can do. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If you stick to the "large" scope of coronation as a secular show, rather than a church sacrament, then there's a curious and quite wide topic of coronation art - from Ukhtomsky to Schechtel... NVO (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed above. In Russia, there was no "secular show" to be distinguished from a "church sacrament;" nor was there in most other European nations after their adoption of Christianity, at least not until recent developments that tended toward the secularization of those societies. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please check all the internal links - is the target (Sacred Mysteries) indeed what you wanted to link (looks more like Sacrament)?
 * In the Orthodox Church, all sacraments are referred to as "Sacred Mysteries;" if you'll ask any Orthodox priest, he'll be glad to explain how they differentiate between the two. The distinction is mostly "mental," but it is there, at least for them. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of how English-speaking Orthodoxes call it, it's a matter of the current state of the linked articles. Sacred Mysteries is in very poor shape and
 * Evidently, the computer must have truncated your sentence here, as it seems to have been "chopped off" (that's happened to me before, too!). I think I understand your point; firstly, all Orthodox refer to them as "mysteries" and not "sacraments," even under the Eastern Orthodox section of the Sacrament article, the main article is given as Sacred Mysteries.  I agree that the "Sacred Mysteries" article needs a lot of work, but I still believe the link should be there, as this is the term used by Orthodox to refer to their sacraments. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please check all image captions. As the uploader of File:Coronation 1896, walking under cover.jpg I cannot vouch that the photo was, indeed, taked after the sacrament. Maybe it was taken before? I'll check the book again but it is merely a photo album, a recent edition that may be incorrect itself. NVO (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicholas is wearing the crown; thus, he couldn't be going to the coronation, as he wouldn't have been wearing the crown then. Clearly, he is coming from the ceremony. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I've gotten myself bogged down in another, non-Wikipedia project that will probably take some time for me to complete, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to address all of the issues raised here, at least not anytime soon. If no other editor is able to take these on, I'd say just fail the article for GA and maybe I (or some other editor, at some later time) can get to these issues (some of which I feel are very legitimate, others a bit less so--but that's just my opinion!) a few months from now when (hopefully) I get done with what I am doing now. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to pass judgements; you can move this whole section elsewhere and let TWT proceed with their review. NVO (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor I, either. I hope you haven't taken anything I've said "personally," as none of it was ever meant as such.  I think you made several excellent, valid points; I did not agree with all that you wrote, but I would never "trash" you for writing it.  I hope nothing I've said has come across any other way; if it has, I sincerely apologize, as I never intended it to come across that way.  Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After rewriting the above replies several times to try to make them best convey what I wished to say (I wrote the originals at work today, on my lunch [half] hour, and was extremely rushed!!), I wish to reiterate what I wrote above, about not meaning anything I've said against you personally, and sincerely apologizing if it seemed otherwise. We have each stated our opinions, and I respect yours--and your right to give it--as much as I'm sure you respect mine.  I would never want you (or anyone) to feel that I was "trashing" you or your opinions, even if I disagree with them.  Whatever I write is in the spirit of friendly discussion, never in bitterness or rancor.  Some people might think it a bit silly of me to say this, but having seen the kinds of discussions that can ensue on Wikipedia (and, as a Christian), and knowing how emphatic I can get in defending a point I'm trying to make, I think it ought to be said nonetheless. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressing issues raised
Several issues have been raised in this GA review; I wanted to provide a brief synopsis of progress or thoughts on each, so far:


 * 1) References - I've shortened several of the references, as requested, changing the title of the former "references" section to "notes" and adding a new "references" section with titles of sources used in the shortened citations.
 * 2) Differences between coronations - I wasn't able to find the sources mentioned in NVO's first objection, so I'm not sure what to do, there. If this fails the GA review, I fully understand.  Perhaps another editor can provide some information.  Everything I saw in my rather limited researc on this topic had me thinking that the ceremony was pretty much the same for every Tsar (including a book I saw several years ago in possession of an Orthodox priest; unfortunately, I don't recall its title, so I couldn't use it in this article!), but if this is not the case, I'd definitely welcome some imput from NVO (specific source information: website info, specific book titles, etc.) or someone else on the subject.  NVO didn't provide any information on what was allegedly different, or any particular source info, so I don't know what to say.  As I said, if this fails the GA nomination, I fully understand!
 * 3) Scope of the Article - With all due respect to NVO, I don't think his objections to the article's scope were well-founded. I think those have been answered, though I'd welcome and consider a reply from anyone who thinks differently.
 * 4) Simeon Bekbulatovich - I haven't been able to determine if Bekbulatovich was formally crowned or not; no picture was given for him, and the article's info is scanty. Since he isn't listed on the formal List of Russian monarchs, I see no reason to include him in this article, or to fail it for GA due to his omission.
 * 5) Portraits - Don't see any reason to change them, as each portrait does depict the monarch named. If another editor wishes to replace a portrait of any particular monarch with one from an earlier period in their life, this is fine, but I don't see any reason for requiring it, or for failing the article for GA on that basis.
 * 6) Internal links and image captions - Addressed above. Don't see any reason to fail it here, either; but the GA reviewer may feel differently on this or any other issue I've raised here, and I defer to and respect his judgment.  These are simply my opinions, rightly or wrongly. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to issues raised
All numbered references are given as of the 24 March 2010 version.

First, I'm glad to see that the hearty discussion above was reasonably settled. I initially feared that I had stumbled upon an edit war, which is a quick-fail for GA review, but it looks like this is not the case, so have continued my review. To the list of issues above:
 * Thank you for re-formatting the citation style! It's wonderful improvement! Thank you for your hard work.
 * I'm not sure about the "Differences between coronations" issue, but as for the "Scope of the Article" issue, the aim of articles on Wikipedia is to summarize the various aspects of a topic in an appropriate level of detail, and so far, I think the article is adequately fulfilling that role.
 * I think the images and the captions are appropriate. If a particular monarch has a nice "coronation image", use it, but I would prefer an clear, aesthetically pleasing image that gets the job done over a blurry, hard-to-discern-image even if the latter is more chronologically correct.

Serious issues that need to be addressed before a final review: References

I have concerns about the legitimacy of several references used in the article. Firstly, forums are not appropriate references: Ref 21 should be removed, the first link as a part of ref 12 I think may also not be appropriate. I am confused by ref 12 as a whole since it encompasses 3 url links. Please clarify this. I have marked other sources as "Full citation needed" (Refs 2, 11, 14, 19, 20, 22). I would like to see the authors/publishers given if possible. Some of the websites appear to be self-published, and I'm not sure how appropriate this is for wikipedia, so I may ask for a second opinion from another editor. I'll give you some time so that you can hopefully find better sources for some of the more questionable ones. Let me know when you think you've done all you can, and I'll revisit the article. Thank you for the work you have dedicated to this project thus far.--Tea with toast (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Final review: Article does not meet GA criteria
I'm sorry to see that the problems noted about the References have not been addressed in the weeks since I gave my preliminary review. For this reason, I find that this article does not meet the 2nd point of the good article criteria. I am sorry to have to fail such a nice article, and it is my sincere hope that changes will be made to improve this article in the future. --Tea with toast (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)