Talk:Keke Geladze

This article says

she was born in 1858 and married at age 17, which would be 1875. But the article on her husband says they were married in May of 1872, when she would have been 14. Is the marriage date wrong, or her birthdate (or both)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.243.30 (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Obituary

I got the obituary of Keke Geladze from the University of Tbilisi. In it, her name is written as "Ekaterine Giorgis asuli Geladze". If you disagree with this edit, please discuss it here with me before reverting. Kurzon (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This book excerpt at the Washington Post of a book by Edvard Radzinsky uses "Ekaterina (Keke) Georgievna Geladze" He had set up house in a hovel after marrying Ekaterina (Keke) Georgievna Geladze, who had been born into the family of a serf.. I'm not sure about Georgian, but I believe that in Russian, Georgievna would be the correct patronymic. The book then describes Ekaterina as "daughter of Glakh Geladze" in quoting a wedding announcement. I don't see any non-circular references for "Gabrielis", apart from the primary source (in Georgian, which I can't read). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Yeah, Georgevina sounds like a Russification. I went trawling through a lot of records specifically to resolve this issue, and got some help from a Georgian language professor. Even the original Georgian documents aren't 100% reliable. "Gabrielis asuli" came from the church birth registry. I think it's an error because in Keke's memoirs she never mentions the name Gabriel. Her father's name was Giorgi or Glakha. Her obituary corroborates this. Kurzon (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Keke Geladze/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) 23:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Since I already have both volumes of Kotkin on hand, I will review this article as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I can provide stuff from other sources if need be as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• An excellent article; no concerns to note. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Assessment against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Phantheon2605.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)