Talk:Anna Filosofova

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

Reviewer: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 08:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this one for tomorrow. Fascinating person.

Great, thanks! Look forward to your comments. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everything done except the source check, which might take a bit. Overall looks great. I have some comments below of which most aren't relevant to the GA criteria. Other than a few minor confusing bits, the only major gap I see is no information on her impact on Russian feminism after her death. The lead at least suggests she and the triumvirate were sort of founding mothers of Russian feminism, so I'd expect some historical analysis of this impact. If it doesn't exist or is too much effort don't worry about it, though. Rusalkii (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And done, sources were an interesting read. Once issues brought up in source check are addressed this will be an easy pass from me. Legacy information would be nice to see but given that major sources don't cover it at all I don't think it's required for the completeness criteria. Rusalkii (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've done some digging to see if I can turn up other sources, but none of the ones I can find really go into detail beyond "the triumvirate foundational leaders of the Russian women's movement" and "celebrated as feminist icon" before her death. Some interesting material, but nothing that I could add here unfortunately (for example 1, 2, 3) —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii, unless there was anything else, I think all comments have been addressed! Thank you for your thorough and speedy review. :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be making minor changes as I go, feel free to undo if you disagree. Any comment I preface with "nit" isn't going to affect my pass/fail.

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 (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images correctly labeled as public domain

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• [nit] "Filosofova credited Trubnikova with her inculcation in the subject" reads awkwardly, especially after the previous sentence which already heavily implies this

• Modified to address this.

• [nit] first two sentences of the third paragraph are rather vague and refer to Filosofova's actions only as a memeber of the triumvirate. Entire lead doesn't mention any specific actions of hers independently of the group until the last sentence, after their death. Can this be focused more on her?

• Modified to address this, although it's a bit tricky. The three women worked together very closely until Trubnikova's health failed, and many sources simply describe actions that "the triumvirate" took with only scattered references to individual roles.

• [nit] Abrupt transition to calling her "Diaghileva", can this be lampshaded? (e.g. "Born as Anna Pavlovna Diaghileva..." or similar)

• Modified to address this.

• "French, German, and curtseying." is a great quote
• [nit] If you call out Dmitry in particular among her children I'd put at least a brief phrase as to why he was important

• Added a phrase to describe this.

• "described as a "tyrannical figure"" - towards serfs? my first interpretation was that he was cruel or overbearing towards her

• Comment: The source (Muravyeva) isn't incredibly clear, but I modified it a little bit.

• [nit] If it would be too long of an aside there's no need to explain in the text, but my first though on reading about the "German" vs "Russian" parties within Russian philanthropy is to wonder what connection the "German" party actually had to Germany

• My recollection from the sources is that they were descended from German nobility who had moved to Russia; many Russian noble families were descended from the nobility of other countries.

• [nit] is "clients" the right choice of word?

• Comment: The source uses "the poor" and "the residents" - clients seemed an ok option, because "patrons" and "clientele" don't quite work. However, definitely open to a better suggestion!

• "never reified" what exactly does this mean in this context?

• Comment: The concept was discussed but the organization was never actually incorporated or licensed.

• Modified for clarity, feel free to change again if you don't think it's an improvement

• "relevant minister" - of Education?

• Comment: Kind of? The exact working of the Tsarist autocracy is a little vague, but apparently he was "Minister of National Enlightenment" at the time, and also had a role in the Holy Synod as well as a seat on the State Council. The Minister of National Enlightenment appears to have been roughly equivalent to an Education Minister, but I don't think it's an exact match.

• Huh. Reasonable to not want to go into that here. Minister of National Englitenment is a pretty cool title, though.

• [nit] Is Bezhanitsy the correct link? I'd wikilink it but didn't want to guess whether the modern name had been retained

• Yes, looks like it is! Added the link.

• [nit] Is it possible to add an explanation re: why they appealed to the war minister/why he had the authority to hold women's classes?

• It appears that there was quite a rivalry between Tolstoy and Milyutin, and also that Filosofova's husband was one of Milyutin's chief deputies. Johanson gets into it a bit in Autocratic Politics, Public Opinion, and Women's Medical Education During the Reign of Alexander II, 1855-1881, though that one focuses on medical education. I'll see what I can add to the text. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A great quote from Johanson going into the rivalry: Because of the jealous nature of autocratic rule under Alexander II, these leading ministers were able to develop contradictory policies governing women's medical education. In order to guard his autocratic power, Alexander II created no central agency to coordinate the tsarist administration. Instead, he divided authority among favored statesmen who enjoyed almost exclusive command of their respective spheres of goverlnment service, but had little influence in any other area of the administration.44 The compartmentalized administration de- manded constant intervention by the tsar in order to maintain the functioning of the autocratic regime and prevented any individual statesman from acquiring extensive power. Very familiar in autocratic systems to this day! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [nit] "raising money for a revolutionary group" - is it known which one?

• Comment: Muravyeva just says "certain revolutionary organizations", and I can't recall a specific mention in any other source.

• Is there anything that could be added on her legacy post-death, affect on Soviet or modern Russian feminism, etc?

• Comment: It's a good question, but as I recall the sources don't have much to say. They're clear that by the end of her life, Filosofova was well-known and well-respected, but I think that's covered in the text as well. There was some material not included on the gap between the "triumvirate" and the nihilists, who were generally younger, less wealthy, and less directly political, but not much on legacy. I'll take another dig through and see if I can come up with something. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of the Biographical Dictionary source goes into this very briefly, though I think the only useful bits are calling her "the first Russian feminist" and saying she had been compared (in her lifetime) to "a Russian Mme Roland". Rusalkii (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to use either, as 1) she was not actually the first Russian feminist, being preceded by Trubnikova at a minimum and 2) the Muravyeva source doesn't say who made the comparison or give much context. However I will look for material to add on her legacy from the other sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Muravyeva, Biographical Dictionary. Looks like everything it cites is in there. Occasional rather close paraphrasing, e.g. in first few sentences of "Early life and education".

• Adjusted: yes, agreed! I should have caught that before nominating. When I began editing the article I found that large chunks of it were very closely paraphrased from Muravyeva, and obviously missed some spots that should have been fixed. Let me know if any others catch your eye. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Last paragraph of the article is very close to Muravyeva's second-to-last, I don't see anything else egregious. Rusalkii (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Rappaport, Women Social Reformers. This source says nine children, not six. Otherwise looks good.

• Ruthchild mentions six children, several miscarriages, and "possibly one or two stillbirths" - I assume this accounts for the discrepancy. Muravyeva also gives six as the total. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Johanson. Y

10. Dudgeon. "in 1904 women's university courses were again allowed outside of the capital" - I don't see this in the source.

• Agreed, that's another pre-improvement sentence which got past me, I've removed it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]