Talk:Elisabeth Dmitrieff/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: asilvering (talk · contribs) 02:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Reviewer 2: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 07:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Review[edit]
First half of review
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Result[edit]
Discussion[edit]Hello ! I am glad to see that my work onn the French version has been used here to update the article. I have received a question on commons and am searching for the place where I photographed Elizabeth's letter. It was also tweeted by Michele Audin who is a French expert on the Paris Commune here https://twitter.com/Commune2021/status/1385887633684025345/photo/2 and is in the public domain as Elizabeth is dead since more than 70 years. The reason for the 3 photos of the "Tenple Unique" in Geneva, is to show that the building is still standing in the 2020s although close to nobody remembers it was a massonic temple, and no one in Geneva remembers the AIT and Dmitriefff hold their meetings here. It was renamed "Eglise du sacré coeur" even before the French Thiers government decided to build the Sacré Coeur in Montmartre, so I think it has an informative and historical value. I am looking at your comments as I will of course update the French article if I see any mistakes and inaccuracies. Centre I am still looking for historical clues in Geneva : Dmitrieff lived at Nicolas Outine's place but I have not found wheer in Geneva yet, and am planning a trip to Lausanne to the CIRA (Centre International de Recherche sur l'Anarchisme) https://www.cira.ch/. You might want also to work on Union des femmes. The only thing I could not do for this article is to get hold of the russian litterature on the subject : apparently there has been quite a lot published (from Ivan Knijnik-Vetrov, Nata Efremova, and Lev Kokin) , but unfortunately my russian is not good enoough. So if someone is able to grab hold of the russian litterture it would be really an improvement. Also, the role of the Jacks of Hearts is nebulous, I did not find much on them and a lot seems to be heavily stereotyped and not very factual. I am so glad that it was translated ! I got a little tired of the subject after working months on it to translate it in English so I am so thankful to see it has been done ! PLease feel free to ask your questions :) Nattes à chat (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
PS I am now working on Madame de Warens and the French version is much better than the English one :)
"Un des enjeux pour Carolyn Eichner est de réévaluer le rôle politique de ces militantes qu’elle considère comme marginalisées, non seulement dans l’historiographie de la Commune, mais aussi dans l’historiographie du féminisme" => translation «One of the challenges for Carolyn Eichner is to reassess the political role of these activists, whom she considers to be marginalized, not only in the historiography of the Commune, but also in the historiography of feminism» This article quotes Carolyn Eichner's words in https://www.lhistoire.fr/la-commune-pas-de-r%C3%A9volution-sans-les-femmes
Dmitrieff by police reports, newspaper at the time of the commune and her counterparts. I own the book in electronic form and it is written in French. It probably is more complete than any other source (even Eichner) and it goes into detail about what people wrote and said about her (Benoit Malon, Lissaragy, the possible reason of André Léo's silence about Elisabeth and the fact she did not join the Union des femmes, the rivality with the other women, the idealisation by the russian biographers of the communist era). One thing is sure : until recently all sources say Louise Michelle was at the center of the focus as a woman in the Commune de Paris, and historians are now trying to pull out the other profiles into the light. Dmitrieff might have been ignored in France as Frankel because they were not French. I dont know how to share the book given the electronic format, but I could probably send the chapter in a print screen version provided the person understands French and I have an email adress. Nattes à chat (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I haven't addressed the concerns in a timely manner. I've gotten pretty busy lately, but I did fix some issues:
You can see here that the Internationale was very linked to these strikes https://books.google.ch/books?id=zMnaIg3x6ZIC&pg=PA11&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, and Elisabeth was a an active member of the Internationale. Geneva is where she learned to be an activist, knowledge that she later made use of in Paris when she organized the women in L'Union des femmes. I have in French detailed the role of the russian section in Geneva here https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_internationale_des_travailleursBasically (even found a flag that was done by the women's section of the international.). So even if we know that Elisabeth in 1868 from Braibant's book was then in 1868 learning and discrete, we know she opposed Bakounine frontly at one point and came to Geneva just when the strikes were going on. We also know she was sent to London to represent the situation of the International in 1870 to Marx. We cannot draw conclusions but I think these elements and historical facts have to be mentionned to understand how she became what she was in the Commune. She inherited from her husband when he died later after the Commune (there was a big age difference). It was a marriage she arranged so that she could travel freely, all the sources agree on that. Nattes à chat (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC) |
Second review by LEvalyn[edit]
Hello all, I see a lot of excellent work is taking place to improve this article. I thought I may as well start my review now, so any concerns I find can be addressed while the article is still being polished. I will update the list below as I work.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | the guidelines are all followed |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. 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). | a lot of cites here but the sources are all reliable and suitable |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | very thoroughly grounded in sources |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | earwig looks good-- all the (low) hits are for names of organizations or direct quotes. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | admirably neutral for a figure whose political work could clearly inspire strong partisanship |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | problematic images have been removed |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | looking good! |
Things to address:[edit]
As you go through these, maybe reply with a quick checkmark to each bullet.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC) -- Actually, just reply, and I'll add a checkmark when I've confirmed that the issue is addressed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
1a prose[edit]
- In lead: I find the two husbands confusing in the lead. I don't think the name of the first husband is necessary here, since he doesn't have his own article, but could a brief clause somewhere orient the reader to some kind of explanation for where he went before the second husband appeared?~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Lead reworked! -- asilvering (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Birth year: I see there are four sources for the birth year 1850 and only one for 1851. Is this an ambiguity that can be resolved by weighing the merit of the sources? As a tertiary source, encyclopedia.com strikes me as less reliable than secondary sources which have examined Dmitrieff's biography more thoroughly.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done (posted on main talk page) -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Childhood, jarring sentence:
Kushelev eventually married Troskevich in 1856, his first wife having died of cholera, after she intervened to save him when his serfs revolted.
-- the events appear to be related in reverse-chronological order. Is the detail about serf revolt relevant in this sentence?~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)- Fixed, I think. -- asilvering (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- In the education section: rather than editorializing (twice!) that Dmitrieff recieved a "good education" (hard to say what that would mean!), I suggest removing those clauses and keeping the section focused on the (quite useful) specifics, e.g., she read these books, had those tutors, but did not attend school.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done! -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- In general I find the section headings are not always a useful summary of the content, or break events up at odd places. "Interest in social inequalities and Marxism," for example, seems like it could go in "Childhood" and in fact contains a lot of information about her father? And "Influence of Nikolay Chernyshevsky" also has a lot of info about Aleksey Kuropatkin and Dmitreiff's move to Geneva. I actually think it might be useful to remove all of the headings and then look at the structure fresh.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- How is it now? -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Geneva:In spring 1868, Dmitrieff passed by Geneva
-- I'm not sure what "passed by" means..? And now I am noticing how confusing it is that she decided to go to Geneva, but then actually goes to Switzerland and London. (Also confusing that there is a structural break in the middle of her 1868 travels.)~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- London: the chronology is a bit jarring, as this section starts with Dmitrieff going to London and then backtracks-- might be clearer to open with something along the lines of, "in 1870 conflicts arose which would result in Dmitrieff going to London." ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think the issue here was just verb tense, but I also expanded the sentence. Still confusing, or better? -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- London:
had all the confidence of the latter
-- is "the latter" Utin? maybe "shared his confidence" would be clearer.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)- Reworded. -- asilvering (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Paris Commune: the article says here that she met Anne Jaclard in Paris, but it also says she met and befriended Jaclard as a teen in "Interest in social inequalities and Marxism" -- clarify this timeline~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed, I think. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Women's Union:
They procured aid to the wounded.
seems out of place when the article has not indicated who would be wounded or how/why.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC) - Women's Union: this sentence is lonely and stranded:
The goal of the Union of Women was the formation of a trade union chamber of female workers
-- can it be integrated into a paragraph?~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC) - Women's Union: also stranded:
Dmitrieff shared with Louise Michel the wish not to differentiate women from men.
~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)- I rewrote a few sentences in here, so can you have another look at these three Women's Union issues and see what you think, @LEvalyn? Regarding the "aid to the wounded" - on the contrary I actually think this sentence is so obvious it isn't even necessary, given that it's right in the name of the Union, so I'm removing it. But the "isn't clear who would be wounded and why" is a bit of a concern. I think the article is pretty clear that there is fighting going on because there is a popular uprising happening in Paris, the Paris Commune. But perhaps that only makes sense to me because I already know what the Commune is. Do you think this needs some more clarification? Or have the rewordings in here made it less confusing already? -- asilvering (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- These three specific issues are now addressed. More broadly, as someone who knows frankly almost nothing about the Paris Commune, I think the article gives a lot of clues as to what it is, but it might be helpful to state it outright (to make it clearer that it is necessary to click over to the Paris Commune article for the full details). The emphasis on the textile industry sometimes leads me to overlook that all of this is happening in a violent or contentious context; it sounds at times like perfectly ordinary labour organizing. I think two additional edits would be enough to fully frame this section in a way that will prompt readers to go to the Paris Commune article when needed. First, be more explicit/specific with the sentence
In the days that followed, revolutionary institutions were put in place.
-- maybe draw on a source from Paris Commune to state the obvious like "soldiers of the National Guard seized control of the city" and "for two months, the communards worked to establish an independent revolutionary government." And second, per the note I make below, spell out as suggested that it is the French National Army retaking the city on behalf of the Third Republic. I think those two sentences, in conjunction with the other details already present, would be enough to signal the full context. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)- I've reworked the lead and the first sentences of the Paris Commune section. Still more needed, or does it work ok? I think there's quite a lot of room for expansion in the Paris Commune section, and the Union des femmes pour la défense de Paris et les soins aux blessés article could really use some expansion too, so as long as this mostly works I'm personally inclined to let it go for now. But if it's still too easy to miss that there was actual fighting going on, that's a problem and I'll want to fix that right away. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This is great, thank you -- great job fitting in these details concisely. I think it's really clear now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- These three specific issues are now addressed. More broadly, as someone who knows frankly almost nothing about the Paris Commune, I think the article gives a lot of clues as to what it is, but it might be helpful to state it outright (to make it clearer that it is necessary to click over to the Paris Commune article for the full details). The emphasis on the textile industry sometimes leads me to overlook that all of this is happening in a violent or contentious context; it sounds at times like perfectly ordinary labour organizing. I think two additional edits would be enough to fully frame this section in a way that will prompt readers to go to the Paris Commune article when needed. First, be more explicit/specific with the sentence
- Bloody Week: spell out in
they retook control of Paris
who took it from whom (I can basically guess, but since there is no transition from the previous section to here, more context is useful)~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)- Done. -- asilvering (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Return to Geneva: the "List of charges" is abrupt / does not flow sensibly from the preceding sentence~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think I fixed this while you were writing this comment, actually. How does that section read now? -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Marriage to Ivan Davydovski: it is confusing that Dmitrieff refers to (I think?) Ivan Davydovski as her husband before we are told that she has married him, especially since the quote comes from the trial and she didn't marry him until after the trial??~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Clarified. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Exile in Siberia: this section would make more sense if events were in chronological order~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's not quite in chronological order now, but it's closer. I think it makes sense to keep the sentence about where they lived over the years as a single unit. Thoughts? -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Elisabeth Dmitrieff Circle: what... is it? An... organization?~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- A
group of feminist Trotskyists participating in the Women's Liberation Movement and the Revolutionary Marxist Alliance
, obviously. Kidding. Looking at this again, I think it's disconnected trivia in this state, but would be an interesting mention if further expanded. I'm not inclined to do that myself right now, so I'll move it and the sources to the talk page for now. -- asilvering (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- A
2b sourcing[edit]
- Women's Union: number needs an inline cite:
The Union of Women assembled more than 1,000 members.
It's not clear if the cite for the next sentence covers this figure too.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)- Resolved. I just removed it, since that section was causing problems anyway and I think everything else there is much more important. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
6a images[edit]
- All but one of the images do have suitable licenses and are from the 19thC, which are appropriate, but File:Книжник-Ветров.jpg looks to me like it is unacceptable and needs to be deleted. The source information is contradictory: if it were indeed from 1900, as listed, it would be fine, and Ivan Knizhnik-Vetrov was an adult in 1900 (though only 22yo), but the page also says that this image is taken from his 1965 obituary, which would be under copyright. The image itself looks much more like a 1960s image than a 1900s one, or really like a 2000s drawing based on a 1900s photograph. I... think... this image needs to be deleted from wikimedia commons now? unless someone can provide further clarity on its origins?? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think that image is so heavily photoshopped that it has become a 21st-century creation. Which is probably even worse. The original uploader has left the project, so we're not going to get answers there. I'll pull it.
- But this got me reading more deeply into how copyright guidelines are phrased on WP regarding historical/archival images, and it is indeed the (extremely restrictive) way I am familiar with, and not at all the way I have seen them applied, which is basically "it's more than n years old, so it's not in copyright". In fact, I don't think the photograph would be a safe bet even if it were indeed from 1900 - because the copyright clock starts once something is published, not when the image is taken. I don't think it's likely that a photograph of someone who was blacklisted and deported was published before his rehabilitation; at any rate, we don't have proof that it was.
- Problem: this means the images of Barteneva, Lissagaray, and Musorgsky are either mislabelled or not in fact PD images. All of them are listed as public domain based on "author's life plus x years". But that only applies to published work, and none of these files assert anything whatsoever about their original publication date. The Barteneva one looks like a scan from a book, so it might be fine or might not - but the book isn't mentioned. Lissagaray and Musorgsky are probably fine, but we don't know. The Musorgsky one says "M. P. Musorgsky" is the source. (Yeah. Sure.)
- But if this is correct, there are a lot of historical images on Wikipedia that need to be torpedoed or relabelled. So...? -- asilvering (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, this is "out of my comfort zone" -- I usually work with things that were printed (i.e., umambiguously "published") in the 18thC (i.e., umambiguously a gazillion years ago) so I'll tap in some expert advice. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- You have a lot of people who assume "it's old, it must be out of copyright," and then you have much stricter image reviews eg. at FAC. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Buidhe's image review[edit]
File:М. П. Мусоргский, 1865.jpgFile:Ekaterina Barteneva.jpg File:Prosper Lissagaray.jpg Needs more info (eg. publication date, or death date of creator) to know public domain status
Some of the images like File:Commune de Paris barricade Place Blanche.jpg must be in the public domain for one reason or another, but I'm not sure if {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-1996}} applies. That should not be an obstacle for passing the article as GA. (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The author given in the Mussgorsky file, Р. К. Ширинян, is probably the Mussgorsky specialist R. K. Shirinyan here: [2]. Obviously, she can't have taken it, so that's still an unknown. What is the death-of-creator date that makes something automatically public domain? There's no way anyone who took a photograph in 1865 is alive today, but I'm not exactly clear on how long ago they need to have died for it to count as public domain. I think WP:PD says 120 years after the death of the creator, but I might be interpreting this section wrong. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- 120 years does make this acceptable for countries with a 70 year copyright term, but US copyright law is a bit more complicated. This source asserts that all US civil war photographs are now in the public domain, so 1865 is actually probably acceptable but later not necessarily. (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I checked another website that says it's 120 years for "unpublished, death date of creator unknown" ([3]), so that's the Lissagaray photo accounted for, I think. The Barteneva one looks convincingly enough like a scan from a book to me that I'm not sure it counts as "unpublished", so I've pulled it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe I think that's all the images accounted for, would you say this article is OK to pass for image copyright? If so, I think it's all done! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's up to the reviewer to decide, but personally I would remove the Barteneva image as well because it could still be copyrighted in the US and there is no US license tag or justification why it would not be copyrighted in the US. (t · c) buidhe 03:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Barteneva image is gone! Do you mean the Lissagaray one? -- asilvering (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's up to the reviewer to decide, but personally I would remove the Barteneva image as well because it could still be copyrighted in the US and there is no US license tag or justification why it would not be copyrighted in the US. (t · c) buidhe 03:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe I think that's all the images accounted for, would you say this article is OK to pass for image copyright? If so, I think it's all done! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I checked another website that says it's 120 years for "unpublished, death date of creator unknown" ([3]), so that's the Lissagaray photo accounted for, I think. The Barteneva one looks convincingly enough like a scan from a book to me that I'm not sure it counts as "unpublished", so I've pulled it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- 120 years does make this acceptable for countries with a 70 year copyright term, but US copyright law is a bit more complicated. This source asserts that all US civil war photographs are now in the public domain, so 1865 is actually probably acceptable but later not necessarily. (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
6b images[edit]
- Since the connection to Marx is emphasized in article & lead, it would be nice to have a photo of him.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- My immediate kneejerks to this are "come on, everyone knows what Marx looks like" and "ugh, does this biography of a woman really need more images of men in it?" -- asilvering (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- What Is to Be Done?: Spell out the link to Dmitrieff in the caption ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- The two images for The International feel a bit cluttered; I think it would be best just to have the interior drawing of the meeting (as it is more directly related). You could consider setting the width to 1.5x to make the details easier to see.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)