Talk:Hotel Ukraina, Moscow

Untitled
gheurope appears to be an account created exclusively for this article. The identical twitter username gheurope lists themselves as "Grand Hotel Europe", a russian hotel. The article has been cleared of brochure copy-paste, but then links have been added in stead. Left a note on their talk page, and a HTML comment in the article to make sure they are aware. 87.194.102.143 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bokddaan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Miniature Moscow
In the loby of the hotel there is a miniature model of moscow. did somebody know somthing about this ? ... פארוק (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in the article. Beastiepaws (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional thoughts
Thoughts on the article about "Hotel Ukraine": all the information on the page is relevant to the topic.The background of the building is short but informative. Nothing is out of date. What missing though is information about the architecture. Article is neutral, nothing is heavily biased to any group, none of viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented. Links work fine. Information mainly comes from other websites which is not very appropriate for a quality wikipedia page. Not a lot of conversations on the "Talk" page.

Bokddaan (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Stacey's Peer Review
The introduction is simple and gives me all of the information I need to connect me into the article right away. The history section of this article is quite extensive but is necessary to understand the context of the hotel. An important part of this building is the style and idea behind it, which all seems to revolve around the government. Without the historical context, I wouldn't be able to fully understand the importance. The structure of the article is easy to follow, again, starting off with the history was extremely important. I also enjoy that at the end that there are sections that don't necessarily have to do with the architecture but are just as important; like the section on the art collection and the ownership. The content seems to be a little overwhelming, especially the section on the architecture and style. Although it was all interesting, I feel that there was almost too much and it could be paired down. The content was neutral and the soured were reliable. Overall, I enjoyed reading this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceyTilton (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)