This review is transcluded from Talk:Augustina Gabel/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Venzz (talk · contribs) 12:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 16:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking this on for review as part of Women in Green's May 2025 edit-a-thon and the GAN Backlog Drive. I find the history of the Narodniks very interesting, so I'm excited to read about Gabel. Thanks for submitting this! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If Gabel was born and raised in Saint Petersburg, and her father was a Russified Pole, why are we providing the Ukrainian translation of her name rather than the Russian one?
• "She later became a member a revolutionary group led by Orest Gabel, whom she later married." The double use of "later" in this sentence is a bit odd; cut one or the other.
• "As organiser of one of its branches, corresponded with writers" Shouldn't it be "she corresponded with writers"?
• "March 29, 1907" Dates should be standardised to a DMY format.
• If we're going to clarify that Kharkiv is in modern-day Ukraine, we should do that at the first instance Kharkiv is mentioned, rather than the last one.

  All fixed. --Venzz (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are we using the Russian transliteration for Augustina's birth name, but then the Ukrainian transliteration for her father's name?
• "Her family was a Catholic" Should be "Her family was Catholic" no?
• Aligning this image to the left has resulted in the sandwiching of text. Per manual of style on image location, images should always be aligned to the right unless absolutely necessary.
• Date and author details should be provided for the petergen source; they can be found at the bottom of the cited article. Also worth citing the full name of the website, Petersburg Genealogical Portal, rather than the url.
  • Normally websites like this would not be considered reliable sources, but this article cites its source, so I think this should be ok.
    • If you will wait one more week, I try to access source book for this information. --Venzz (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm more than happy to give some more time on this if it means improving the sourcing. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Venzz: Hey, it's been a week now. Has there been any progress on this? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found a scan of the printed book and replaced the link to the low-authority website with a link to the book Двадцатипятилѣтие Василеостровской женской гимназии. 1858—1883 г. [Twenty-fifth anniversary of Vasileostrovskaya Girls' Gymnasium. 1858-1883]. Saint Petersburg: Printing house of V. Demakov. 1883. pp. 40, VIII. Venzz (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck:[1][5][6] Verified information about her being orphaned and raised by her sister/brother-in-law, and her being in the Vasileostrovsky gymnasium in Telegina 2020; verified graduation date in Petergen. As these sources verify distinct pieces of information, they should be cited inline with the specific information they verify, rather than bundling them together at the end of the paragraph. Unable to verify information in Goff 2011.
  • I added a link to the Goff article. Goff and Telegina provide similar information, only Telegina's is more complete. Perhaps it is worth removing the information from the Goff article here? The Reference to Petergen is now separate from the others. --Venzz (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, except finding the source book from petergen. --Venzz (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Venzz: Excellent. Still waiting on the rest of my comments on the other sections to be addressed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Augustina Gabel" She hasn't married Orest Gabel at this point in time, so we should not yet be using this name. It is especially confusing as you refer to her as "Sinkevich" in the following paragraph. Per the manual of style on surnames, we should be using her birth name "Sinkevich" until her marriage, then switch to using "Gabel".

  Fixed. --Venzz (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Augustina Gabel gave private lessons." When? To who?

  Rewrited. --Venzz (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it necessary to have an explanatory footnote saying who Sofia Smitten's father is? She's only mentioned once in the article, so this kind of information is hardly necessary to Gabel's biography.

  I have removed the footnote. --Venzz (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the mid-1870s, she ran a cobbler's workshop on Poshtamtska Street with Sofia Smitten, based on co-operative principles." Saying the workshop was "based on co-operative principles" after Smitten's name and the location is a bit confusing structurally. Perhaps "she ran a cooperative cobbler's workshop [...]" could work?

  Rewrited.--Venzz (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Meetings were held" What kind of meetings? If these were meetings of revolutionaries, then lead with that and use the active voice.

  Rewrited.--Venzz (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Did Gabel attend these meetings? Did she host them? If not, it's not worth going into too much detail about them.

  Rewrited. --Venzz (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was here that the Finnish-born Johannes Pelkonen, [...]" What does any of this have to do with Gabel's biography? Neither Pelkonen or the Trial of the 193 come up again, so this seems like a superfluous detail.

  Deleted this information. --Venzz (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "unofficial surveillance" What does this mean? Who was keeping her under surveillance? How was it "unofficial"?

  This is a synonym for secret surveillance, changed to "secret". --Venzz (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, not "secret", but "covert". --Venzz (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• So she was living with relatives in Kharkiv in 1874, then moved back to Saint Petersburg later. Did she found the cobbler's workshop before or after she was living in Kharkiv.

  As I understand from the sources, she ran a cobbler's workshop before her trip to Chuguiv. These stages of her life are arranged chronologically in the biography. --Venzz (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "She became a participant in the Going to the People movement" For concision, this could be worded as "She participated in the Going to the People movement".

  Fixed. --Venzz (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Nikolaenko discuss Sholomova's thoughts? If not, this should not be cited in line with them, as it gives a misleading impression about the sources.

  Fixed. --Venzz (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You attributed Sholomova to Gabel providing financial assistance to Ilya Repin. Is there reason to doubt she did this?

  This information looks a bit dubious, in my opinion. Because in 1873-1876 Repin was on his trip to Europe. --Venzz (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Samuel Limbek" Earlier you wrote his name as "Linbek"; which one was it?

  The correct name is Linbek, corrected. --Venzz (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bosnia and Herzegovina" should link to Bosnia vilayet, rather than the modern nation-state.

  Fixed. --Venzz (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck:[1] Verified.
• "she was in the Petropavlovsk Fortress prison" Probably best to explicitly say she was detained in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

  Fixed. --Venzz (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to Peter and Paul Fortress.

  Fixed. --Venzz (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "having relations with those held in the pre-trial detention centre with a view to their release" This is very confusingly worded, and I can assume it is an original translation. You should summarise what this means in your own words, or provide the original quotation (per the manual of style on foreign-language quotes).

  This is a translation from a 19th century Russian text. It sounds confusing even in modern Russian. I added the original text because I am quoting an official accusation here and therefore I consider it appropriate to have the quote. --Venzz (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified her imprisonment in the Peter and Paul Fortress and her giving birth there. The rest of this paragraph is not in this source. As before, sources should be cited inline with the specific information they're verifying, rather than bundled together at the end of paragraphs.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified all information in this paragraph, except that she received permission from the Minister of the Interior.
• "another Polish woman" Was Gabel considered Polish by historians? Did she consider herself Polish? If not, then "another" is inappropriate.

  She considered like Polish by historian Nikolayenko. She is one of the leading researchers of the history of Poles in Central and Eastern Ukraine. Also she was named Plish in article of Scholomowa and "Deyateli revolyutsionnogo dvizheniya v Rossii: bio-bibliograficheskiy slovar". --Venzz (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This last paragraph about Nikolayenko's interpretation is not written in an neutral tone of voice and could do with being trimmed down a bit.

  Rewrited.--Venzz (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "were placed under secret surveillance" Should this say "were secretly placed under surveillance"?

  It is about "the covert police surveillance"--Venzz (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• "and perhaps some of them were sent" Assuming this is still citing Sholomova, this should say something like "and that some of them may have been sent".

  Fixed. --Venzz (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, if Sholomova is not being mentioned in all of these sources, they should not be bundled together at the end of a sentence in which we are citing her.
• Spotcheck: [1] Correspondence with Chekhov verified, but none of the rest of this section is in here. Please cite sources inline with the specific information they verify.
• "Also in 1906, the library filed a petition to name the branch "Chekhovsky"" What does this have to do with Gabel? Was she involved in the petition?

  Removed. --Venzz (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [1] Date and place of death verified.

• An entire section dedicated to a pencil sketch of her surprises me, so I hope it's being given due weight.
• Per the manual of style on image location, this image should be aligned to the right.
• Spotcheck: [24] Verified.
• "The drawing depicts a young girl dressed in a gown with a cape" This lengthy description would be fitting as alt text for the image, but it is unnecessary in the prose.
• Again, if this quotation is your original translation, then it should either be summarised in your own words or the original quotation provided.
• A lot of this interpretation of the image strikes me as something that should be in Repin's article, not Gabel's.

  I deleted the section, some information about Repin l moved to the Biography. --Venzz (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You already discuss her marriage to Gabel and mention all of her children earlier in her biography. This section is entirely superfluous and could easily be removed without issue. Any necessary details for Gabel's biography, including that detail about all her daughters becoming librarians, could be moved into the biography itself.

  I deleted the section, the detail about all her daughters moved. --Venzz (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As you are using the same explanatory footnote more than once, these should be a named reference in order to avoid duplication.
• You're citing Russian and Ukrainian sources here, but then only provide the Romanized transliterations. The explanatory footnote should therefore include both the original Russian/Ukrainian text, as well as the transliteration.

• Translating the titles of these works without providing the original Russian and Ukrainian titles makes these sources difficult to verify. You should provide the original Russian/Ukrainian titles in the title field of the citation formatting, then provide the English translation in a trans-title field. See Help:Citation Style 1#Titles and chapters. It seems like you've done this for some sources, but not for others. This article would benefit immensely from standardising the formatting.
• It seems like you've followed the Cyrillic alphabet order, but this has resulted in the source list losing its alphabetisation in English. It should be alphabetised according to the order of the Latin alphabet.

  Fixed all. --Venzz (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There are a few cases where the prose is unclear and could be tightened up for concision.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The article fails to keep to the manual of style on several counts, including MOS:IMAGELOC, MOS:SURNAME and MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The references should all have the original titles and English translations; as it is, the formatting of the citations is inconsistent.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Citations are frequently bundled together at the end of paragraphs, which makes verifying specific pieces of information tricky. Citations should always be provided inline with the information they are verifying.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research as far as I can see.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No apparent copyright violations or plagiarism, even in translation, as far as I can tell.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems to get all of the beats of her biography that I would expect to be in there, without any large gaps.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There's a few cases where the article loses focus and gets away from its subject. These should be trimmed back so we stay focused on Gabel.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   There's a couple cases where the language gets a bit too fluffy and loses a neutral tone of voice.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since GA nomination; no reversions since the article was created last year.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I'm not so sure about the public domain status, as most are currently tagged as having been published in the Russian Empire, but no evidence of first publication is provided.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All photographs are relevant to the subject and properly captioned, but they could do with alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article still needs a bit of work before it meets GA criteria. In particular, its prose needs to be tightened up, references need to be consistently formatted and cited inline, and the PD status of the images need to be confirmed. I'm happy to give some time for the necessary changes to be made. Feel free to ping me when you've addressed everything and/or if you have any questions. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am glad, that you have started to review this article. Your notes are relevant and I will do improvement. Venzz (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Venzz: Hi. This review has been open for over a month now, and some of these comments still need addressing. Are you planning to continue work on this? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will complete in several days, sorry. Venzz (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Venzz and Grnrchst: Any updates on this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: I still have unaddressed comments. @Venzz: I'm getting very impatient about how long I've been waiting for this review to finish, please address the remaining comments or I will be closing it as unsuccessful. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this review as unsuccessful. @Venzz: In future, I would advise you respond promptly to all of a reviewers' comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]