Talk:Vera Gedroits/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 05:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This reads well after a brief look, so I will review it in detail over the next few days. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is well up to the standard for GAN, and all my quibbles have been addressed, so passing this now. If you have the time to spare, I'd suggest polishing the prose further and taking it to FAC. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

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:

   All issues have been addressed

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

   All issues have been addressed

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

   References are appropriately formatted

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sources appear reliable for the material for which they are used.

   C. It contains no original research:

   I have spot-checked the English sources, and I can find no issues aside from one minor point mentioned below. AGF on Russian and French sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear, spotchecks reveal no issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Article is comprehensive, up to and beyond the GA requirements.

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

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Only a couple of minor issues, which have been addressed

5. Is it stable?

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

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

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

   All issues have been addressed

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

   I've added some links to the captions, otherwise no issues.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All comments taken care of: passing shortly.

Comments

• Most of the image licensing looks okay, but I'm a bit uncertain about this image; Gedroits was the author of the report, but does that make her responsible for the photograph too?

 Done I agree that there is not much chance that she took the photograph if she is in the photograph. While possible, it seems doubtful. I amended the template to show she was the author of the book, but the photograph author is unknown. I also affixed {{PD-1923}} "published anywhere before 1923 and public domain in the U.S." SusunW (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• If this were at FAC I suspect that an image reviewer would like to see tags on the images explaining why they are in the public domain in the US. I suspect they all fall under this tag, though it might be worth double checking with someone who knows these issues better than me.

 Done I am not a technician nor an expert on commons, however, all of the photographs were published during the Imperial period of Russia (ended 1918) thus I concur that the {{PD-1923}} template makes sense and have affixed it to each of the Russian images. I was unsure if this is required for the Swiss image, though I noted and affixed "Swiss National Library, EAD-7270" per the instructions on the image of the University of Lausanne. SusunW (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm still working my way through the prose, but it strikes me that the list of publications is rather long for a biography. If many of her works are notable, it seems to me a separate list would be more appropriate; otherwise, I'd suggest pruning this, and listing only those works that have been commented upon in secondary sources. This is particularly true for those entries that are currently unreferenced.

I am not sure that I understand "unreferenced". All of the works are referenced, either to an outside citation or the worldcat identifier. I did not see the point of including, say the OCLC identifier and a citation, as it would be redundant. All of the works are discussed in the text, I simply collated them so that one could visually see the range of topics in the selected works section. 10 of her scientific publications, out of the nearly 60 she wrote, does not appear to my mind excessive, but I have pruned the literary section of all but her major works. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• One entry (third from the bottom) has no citation at all; that's the one I was referring to.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I spot-checked this ref, which is footnote 51. I'm afraid it doesn't quite support the sentence; there's no mention in the source of her prose being compared to her poetry, unless I missed something.

I reworked the sentence. Adding a citation by Metz to show that her poetry was not in the same class as her prose. Can you evaluate the modification and advise if it is now acceptable? SusunW (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• The very first sentence of the body is rather long, and should be broken up.
  •  Done --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• It would be interesting (though it isn't required) to include what Sergei died of.

COMMENT: When I first began collecting sourcing material for the article, I read somewhere that he had seizures. Not sure what that meant, but following an outage of WP where I lost all the sources I had gathered, I was unable to find the source again. I tried searching Gedroits, epilepsy, seizures, and convulsions in Russian, but was never able to find the source again. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oh well.

I know, right? Totally frustrating. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• "following the medical courses of the anatomy professor" I'm not certain what is meant by "following" here.
  •  Done --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

In technical terms she "read" the courses, but WP only treats that topic with regard to the law. Reading a course, simply meant that she apprenticed under him to study and practice, it is quite a different educational method than what we have now, but attended works. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• " the circle of Victor Alexandrovich Veynshtok" since this individual is not linked, it would be helpful to have a brief explanation of what the circle (or her revolutionary group more generally) did.

Revolutionary movements in late 19th century Russia were a dime a dozen, unfortunately. I found http://ez.chita.ru/encycl/person/?id=348 but it isn't very specific. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

They were a populist movement, according to Maire. I have linked to an article on that, which though it mentions the Russian populist movement, doesn't really discuss Russia in general. In general, these types of movements in the 19th century were against the existing state authority calling for more involvement from the masses. SusunW (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Narodnitchestvo is quite Russian-specific, and is the word Maire uses. We can say done. --GRuban (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Question: should references to locations be to their current names or historical names? St. Petersburg, for instance, was definitely "Petrograd" at the time, and there may be others I haven't caught.

 Done SusunW (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Unstriking...there's a lot more St. Petersburgs.

It was actually St. Petersburg (sort of) when she grew up; it changed names twice during her life time, and has now been returned to St. Petersburg (sort of). Here's the explanation from our article

Saint Petersburg: Peter the Great originally named the city, Sankt-Peterburg (Russian: Санкт-Петербург;[a] note that the Russian name lacks the letter s between Peter and burg).[14] On September 1, 1914, after the outbreak of World War I, the Imperial government renamed the city Petrograd (Russian: Петрогра́д[a], IPA: [pʲɪtrɐˈgrat]),[15] meaning "Peter's city", in order to expunge the German-sounding words Sankt and Burg. On 26 January 1924 it was renamed to Leningrad (Russian: Ленингра́д, IPA: [lʲɪnʲɪnˈgrat]), meaning "Lenin's City". On 6 September 1991, the original name, Sankt-Peterburg, was returned.

If we want to be strict and change the name when it changes, we at least want to give a few words during each name change. Honestly, just leaving it St. Petersburg at each mention might be simpler, since the name change didn't really affect her work in any way. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know that, I just knew it was Petrograd during the Revolution. In this situation, what I think we should do is use the name that was correct at the period in time when it is first discussed in the article, and then use that throughout: does that sound reasonable?

I think the name change is kind of like women's names, constantly changing. It drives me crazy when someone refers to a woman's married name at her birth. So I don't have a problem with it being St. Petersburg up to 1914 and then Leningrad after 1924. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Realizing she had a responsibility to her family," This is too heavy an editorial voice for my taste: I would suggest "Believing" in place of "Realizing".

 Done SusunW (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• It is not clear whether the three sentences beginning "Inadequate safety conditions..." refer to the factory or the area as a whole. Also, "safety conditions" is an odd phrase; I'd suggest "practices".

 Done SusunW (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Gedroits was required to attain Russian credentials" I'm not certain what this means.

There was no reciprocity to accept foreign degrees, i.e. she couldn't practice without obtaining Russian certification as a doctor. Pretty much this is still applicable for the medical profession. Just because you are licensed in country A does not mean you can practice in country B. SusunW (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I should also say I used credentials as a catch-all. At the time, things were not so standardized. Some countries required only a diploma, others a license, others completion of an internship, etc. I have no idea what was required in Russia at the time, but whatever it was, she was required to pass an examination. SusunW (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Why does the University of Moscow and its requirements enter the picture? So far, all we've learned is that she does not wish to live in the provinces.

My guess is that they were the "authority" who pronounced one as qualified, i.e. like now one would have to obtain credentials from a medical licensing board. No source addresses it, but to my mind, it seemed self evident. I am not even sure how one would research whether the University of Moscow was the "authority" at that time. SusunW (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• "and still under the watch of the police" Again, when did she start being watched?

When she was arrested in 1892. Are you wanting a date input? SusunW (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think it would be good to say something like "and having been under the watch of the police since her arrest in 1892, was required..."

•  Done I split it into two sentences as was far to long with the additional clause. SusunW (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• "allowing her to practice medicine in Russia." Clearly, she'd been doing this already: how was she practicising medicine without a certificate, and why did she now have to get one?

She was working for a friend of her father and my guess is that he was glad of the help and not likely to report her. If she wanted to leave his employ and practice anywhere else, she would have had to be properly certified/licensed/credentialed. SusunW (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Thank you for the review. I think between GRuban and I we have addressed most of your concerns, though on some I am not sure what you prefer that we do. Please advise of next steps. GRuban, thank you so much for your help! SusunW (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That was fast work, thank you. I've only read through the first three sections so far. So, not much for you; just sit tight, and I'll try to get through the rest (probably tomorrow). I'll also try to clarify my comments where required. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I've understood what's going on with the points I've raised above, so I let me make a more general suggestion. I think that when the article says that Gedroits wanted to leave provincial life, it needs to explain why she was able to practice medicine in the factory but not elsewhere. If we get that in place I think a lot of my doubts are answered.

I don't know how we do that. It would to my mind constitute original research. We know she worked for her father's friend as a doctor. For all we know, she was listed on his books as a factory worker. We know that the sources say to leave she had to obtain credentials. I added "throughout Russia", i.e. allowing her to practice medicine throughout Russia, which to my mind implies that before she could not work throughout the country. SusunW (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• @SusanW: I've made a small change. Could you ascertain whether that is straying into OR territory? If not, I think that's enough. Vanamonde (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• @SusunW: repinging since I messed it up the first time. Vanamonde (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we are fine. Sosnovskaya simply notes the discrepancy that some sources say she started working in 1900 and others say after she got her Russian diploma in 1903. But Sosnovskaya says that even though she received a diploma as a doctor of medicine from one of the oldest educational institutions in Europe, she was required to confirm her qualifications in Russia. She had to pass the missing exams of the medical faculty of the University of Moscow and ironically that her address on the request to take the exams was given as the cement factory. So, the authorities knew she was working there. SusunW (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent.

• "the Red Cross convoy" Unless there's a specific convoy, which should be explained, I'd suggest "a Red Cross convoy", and linking Red Cross.

   Done Not sure "convoy" is strictly correct, so let's just say "Red Cross". We can ask Susun, but I'm guessing her use of "convoy" is coming from Maire's word "convoi", and while my French isn't as good as my Russian, it's not nil, and I think what Maire meant here is "train"; that is one of the ways to translate the French "convoi", and the Russian sources definitely say "train", as in the physical bunch of metal cars on a track. In general the English "convoy" means something traveling from point A to point B, and Gedroits's mission wasn't really traveling, she stayed in Manchuria for months, only really traveling to be close to the front lines where the wounded were. --GRuban (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly GRuban like a supply train. But, I didn't use the word train because that was totally different than the actual Noble's Mobile Hospital, which was a train. Just Red Cross is fine. SusunW (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• There's some places where the serial comma is used, and some where it isn't. I prefer that it be used, but of course that's a stylistic preference I cannot impose; what's certain is that it should be standardized.

 Done I am now blind, but I think I have made all the comma uses uniform. SusunW (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Gedroits could not openly support the Russian Provisional Government" Why?

•  Done Because she was in the employment of the Tsar. Open support of the forces trying to oust him would have been just as deadly, as supporting the Tsar. (I thought she was brilliant to discover a way out, as so many nobles were arrested and killed). Added a phrase. SusunW (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• "as a married couple" They were obviously not married, so this needs clarification: perhaps "as though they were a married couple".

Heh. This is Susun's literal translation of a euphemism in the original source; I'd have thought this particular euphemism would cross language barriers, but I guess not for all readers. Intimate relationship maybe? Cohabitation? --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear. The translation of the neighbor's statement in Metz is very specific "Maria Dmitrievna Nirod was not a friend of Gedroits, but a wife". In Gedroits (not Vera)[1], it states "Despite this, the two women lived together as husband and wife." I am struggling with changing it to as though they were, as to them and those around them, whether legal or not, they were joined. Probably my POV, but "as though they were" seems to make their relationship somehow less than what it was. If we follow the sources, they were living as married partners. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well...I understand that sentiment, but we really shouldn't refer to them as married when they were legally not, because that's verging on misrepresenting the source. We could attribute the descriptor to the friend, as you did here, or say "intimate relationship", or "romantic relationship", or something.

You say pa-tah-toe, I say po-tae-toe, I think it is staying true to the sources, but not the legal situation of the time. LOL At any rate, I have attributed it to Irina Avdiyeva. SusunW (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you :)

• I don't think her poems have been referred to as epics before they are compared to her prose

She wrote short poems and epic poems. There are a bunch of them included in Metz, but the critique by G. Ivanov said that in the three years that lapsed between the publication of Poems and Fairytales and Veg she had improved, developing new skill and word choice, as well as balance, but the lyric works were defective and anemically lethargic. "Especially unpleasant" are the epic poems on Russian themes. Which poems those are, I have no idea. Going further Maire says "Most of V. Giedroyc's poems of this period are marked by theosophy; they also include features of Russian folklore. Unfortunately, her literary activity was not as successful as her activity in the medical field". I've flipped the sentence: Unlike her epic poems, which were labeled "особенно неприятны" (especially unpleasant), Gedroits' prose, was called "outstanding". SusunW (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's it with the body: I'll come back to the lead when these are resolved. Vanamonde (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I think we have addressed everything, but if you have further questions or need anything else to pass it, please advise. GRuban again, I totally appreciate your help, skill, and support in moving this along. So nice to have partners to collaborate with. SusunW (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@SusanW: Just one outstanding point at the moment; the one about the credentials issue. I'll go ahead and review the lead while you're about that. Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

2 "u"s no "a", always a problem. I have commented, but don't really know how to fix the issue. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• My nitpicky self has a couple of issues with the lead. First; we say "credited with being" in the legacy section, but go ahead and call her the first military surgeon in Wikipedia's voice in the lead. Which is it? If we're being cautious in the body, we should do the same in the lead.

My failure to ever see the world in absolutes. We both call something blue because someone once pointed to that color and said "this is blue", but I have no way of knowing that your eyes see the same thing as mine do when we look at that color. I have changed the body. SusunW (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also, "though her best works were her fictionalized autobiographical stories" would do much better attributed to critics.

 Done attributed to Fedin SusunW (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Minor point; the Tsarina is introduced as the Tsarina in the lead, but as the Empress in the body. Best to standardize, I think: the link takes care of translation issues, I'd think.

 Done SusunW (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.