This article is about Nadezhda Stasova, an early Russian feminist and activist. She was part of a group of three friends and allies known as the "triumvirate", alongside Maria Trubnikova and Anna Filosofova. Stasova pushed hard for women's education and was instrumental in creating university-standard courses open to women in the Russian Empire. The article underwent a thorough GA review from SusunW last December.
File:Nadezhda Stasova restored higher resolution (cropped).jpg is a retouched version of a public domain, both due to its age. However, I think it qualifies for the preferred PD-Russia-expired license tag, as it has an unknown author and was published prior to 1929. I will say that I am not sure the retouching is useful here? The upscaling has added detail to a point where it seems more like an artists' interpretation of the image, rather than an accurate depiction of the original photo. I would suggest cropping File:Надежда Васильевна Стасова. Деятельница по высшему женскому образованию в России.jpg (with the license change) for this image; and since the following image exists, it might be good just to swap that into the infobox and have the lower res image from the All-Russian League for Women's Equality in-article.
Hmm, I see your point on the All-Russian League photo. What do you think about leaving it out entirely and just using the Repin portrait, which is very striking, in the infobox? If the body then feels a little under-illustrated we could add a small pair of pictures of Trubnikova and Filosofova to emphasize the close collaboration of the "triumvirate". —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! That's a great idea. (And I forgot to mention this in my initial run-through, but both images have excellent alt-text.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources appear to be reliable. I extensively reviewed them during the GA process and found that while they are English language sources, they relied primarily on Russian sourcing. Comments to follow. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are some publishing locations given and others not given? References should be consistent.
Fixed: added publishing locations to books where it was missing; the only exceptions are those where the name of the publisher contains the location, or non-books.
"Stasova was the fourth of seven siblings", Muravyeva p. 526 says 5th of 8; Ruthchild 2009 p 75 1 of 7 siblings; Ruthchild 2008 p 151 says 4th of 7. Any idea why the discrepancy? Perhaps you should just say she was one of the middle children of 7 or 8 siblings?
Modified along the lines of your suggestion, with a footnote describing the discrepancy.
Ruthchild 2008 does not have page numbers for her entry. According to this version, her biography appears in volume 4: Seton-Zia, on pages 151-152, which should be in the citation.
Added
The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Women's Biography editor1-link=Jenny Uglow; 2nd editor is Maggy Hendry. (Were it me, because it has been tradition to obscure women's names, I would state their given names.) Also note, you do not give what edition you are using for the citation. I only find Nadezhda on page 550 in the 4th edition, which confirms only that Elena was her niece and a revolutionary. The previous page 549 has Elena's biography and shows she became a party official. I would likely change the chapters to reflect both bios and give a page range, for whatever edition you are using.
"retained their stations in the good graces of the upper class", no page numbers given, but both sources are multi-page references. Ruthchild chapter 6 appears on pages 69-84; Johanson chapter 2 appears on pages 28-50. Pages ranges should be given in the reference citation and in the in-line citation should show the specific page for each source.
Added
"differed on their preferred approach", cited to Engel p. 76, but that page is not within the chapter cited and is about a completely different group of women. On pp 58-59, Engel talks about the split in philosophy, but does not mention German or Russian factions. I do find that factions are contained in Ruthchild 2009, p 76 and Stites p. 69
Adjusted to correct this error.
I am confused about note "a" citation to Zelnick, since the note specifically attributes the information to Stites, which I find on p. 69. Who is Stites, i.e. note should give his full name and the fact that he is a historian specializing in Russian culture so we know why he is authoritative.
Comment: I think that one got messed up as citations were moved around - it was supposed to be to Stites. I've fixed it.
I see that you made the corrections, but the note still just gives his surname. It should give his full name, be linked and state why he is authoritative. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sunday school movement in Russia", p 154 of Zelnik and p 527 of Muravyeva don't classify who is attending the classes. (Muravyeva does say working class women attended the later courses in Sastova's home). You need to add p. 156 to Zelnick where he describes the students. I also think that it is imperative to add a note that these were not the same as Western Sunday school religious instruction courses, but instead private schools focused on combating illiteracy with classes held on Sunday, which was Russian workers' traditional day off, per Zelnick p. 151
Adjusted as suggested.
"Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales" Ruthchild 2008 needs p 152; Stites is not on p. 34 but on p. 69. Neither of these give the number of women involved and I cannot find an accessible copy of Kaufman, but Ruthchild 2009 p. 78 says 27 women were employed.
Comment: Stites does say "Some forty members" while Kaufman puts it around 35. No doubt the number fluctuated over the years of the artel's existence. I've modified the sentence to be a little less specific, accordingly. Page #s added.
Second comment: Rappaport puts it at "One hundred women" in the collective - some widely varying numbers!
"printers, binders, and suppliers" Rutchild 2008 needs p. 152
Done
"lasted until 1879" Ruthchild 2009 needs pp 78-79
Done
"plan of action was agreed upon I don't see on either of the cited pages. Actually just found this. It is in Stites, p. 75, but the version of events is different. Source says Evgenia Konradi presented a motion for a women's university at a naturalists' conference in 1867 and when it was rejected, she gathered those who expressed support in Trubnikova's apartment, where they made a plan.
"petition to Tsar Alexander II." p. 37 of Johanson says the petition was sent to "K.F. Kessler, the rector of St Petersburg University"; Engel p. 60 says they presented the petition to Dmitrii Tolstoi, the Minister of Education; Rappaport p. 671 says Stasova and Filosova went to persuade Dmitrii Tolstoi, but says nothing about delivering the petition to him. Can you clarify? Stites p. 75 says the women delivered the petition to the rector who supported the idea and sent it to the Ministry of Education to approve. That version is confirmed by Johanson pp 37-38
I don't see the quote "regular, serious courses" on either on Stites p. 34, although p 75 confirms the university approved the plan.
I don't see any discussion of widespread opposition except in Stites, p. 76 says the government was hostile to the plan.
"less-advanced, mixed-gender public lectures" is not on Stites p. 34, but is on p. 77
"host courses for women in Saint Petersburg", Millyutin allowed medical courses only and Johanson 1979 needs to show p. 437
I don't see the subjects they were allowed to take in Muravyeva, but the other two are fine.
"in 1872, the Vladimir college" per Muravyeva p. 528 it happened in 1871
Comments on all of the above. I was working from an excerpt of Stites which had different page numbers, but citing from the full book, I've fixed the page numbers as you suggest. I've tweaked a number of sentences to make the path of the fight for higher education a little clearer, and fix some details (such as who the petition was actually addressed to - good catch!). I think all of the above comments should be addressed by these changes. Let me know if anything still needs tweaking. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"men's universities was still barred: pages 59-62 and 74-76 are not part of chapter II of Johanson 1987 instead part of chapter 4. Women's Higher Courses: A Domestic Safety Valve pp 59-76. Were it me, I would probably take out the chapter names altogether for Johanson since she wrote the whole book and just cite it as a whole. I get that the PDFs in DeGruyter are by chapter, but if you do it by chapter, then each time the chapter changes, you need to change the reference citation and in-line link.
Done
"tuition was therefore high", again not Chapter 2 of Johanson, but chapter 4. (You can avoid changing chapters if you just take them all out and cite only the book.)
Done
"for the courses in 1883" should be cited to Muravyeva p 528 and Rappaport pp 671-672
Done
"four-year university schedule" is not in Muravyeva or Rappaport. It is in Johanson chapter 4, pp 74-76 and chapter 6. The Bitter End: The Conservative Assault on Higher Education pp. 95-103 (Again you can avoid changing chapters if you just take them all out and cite only the book.)
Done
"were shut down in 1886" is not in Rappaport. Same comments on Johanson as previous comment. But, the courses weren't shut down, exactly. Enrollment was suspended pending regulatory changes, which allowed students who were already enrolled to graduate. It does say that without new guidelines the courses would cease but also says a commission "finish[ed] its work" on women's education in 1888, with new regulations pp 97-98 (Perhaps it's a technicality, but if a student enrolled prior to the suspension of enrollment in 1886 they would have completed the 4-year course, in 1890, one year after Alex III allowed enrollment to begin again.)
Modified the sentence to make this clearer.
Muravyeva does say p. 528 that Stasova got Alex III to allow enrollment again, but Johanson p. 98 credits that to Elena I. Likhacheva?
Comment: No doubt both played a role - I've added a parenthetical and a cite to include Likhacheva's involvement, but not gone into detail, as the article is about Stasova.
"Children's Aid Society" is not in Rappaport.
Removed stray cite
"as a kindergarten, hostel, and employment service" is not in Muravyeva's bio of Stasova, nor is p 500. P 500 is from Natalia Novikova and is a bio of Shabanova, Anna (1848–1932) pp 498-502. It does verify the info, but you need to correct the chapter and page range for this reference from A Biographical Dictionary of Women's Movements and Feminisms...
Added as a separate cite, given the different author
Overall, I find no copyvios. Fixing mostly citation page number discrepancies above should resolve the technical issues. Thorough check of all sourcing reveals no major deviations between sources and article. Minor discrepancies noted above. SusunW (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your extremely dedicated work in fixing page numbers, catching discrepancies, and generally giving the article as thorough of a look as anyone could. I really appreciate all of your comments! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is one comment left about Stites, but it doesn't impact the source review. Pass sources and "spot checks". SusunW (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, she was privately tutored by professors hired by her family, and studied foreign languages, music, art, and etiquette. However? "Despite this, she was privately tutored..." or "Consequently, she was privately tutored..."? If the first version is right, why did her parenets decided to educate her?
Comment: This one is a little more complex. Muravyeva writes that she received the usual education for a girl of her social position: lessons in French and German... polite manners, music, drawing, dancing, and so forth...the family also [hired professors] to each her and her siblings literature, art, and history. Engel says only that she was exceptionally well-educated for the times. Stites lists some authors she was schooled in (p. 67). Ruthchild, in contrast, presents Stasova's own view, which is presented in the prior sentence. What to make of all this? It seems to me that she received about as good an education as you could expect a Russian noble girl to get, but that nevertheless this was both unequal to what a boy would receive, and inadequate by her own abilities and standards. I'd welcome your thoughts on how best to make that clear and will consider how to modify the sentences myself.
...Stasova returned to Saint Petersburg We were not previously informed that she lived in St Petersburg.
Modified to address this.
Introduce Maria Trubnikova and Anna Filosofova.
Added a phrase to the sentence on Trubnikova. I think Filosofova is adequately covered by the quote from Tyrkova-Williams, and of course the link to her own article. I'm not sure if there's an elegant way to sum up either woman in just a few words.
I think a short introduction could be enough (see below).
Added
...retained their stations in the good graces of the upper class Could you check it is not closely paraphrased?
Double-checked - all good.
The reduced group's charter was approved by the Tsarist government in February 1861. 1. What is the reduced group? (A society was mentioned previously) 2. Why did the government prefer the "Russian" group within their association?
Comment: modified the phrasing to hopefully address the first question. As to the second, I don't think the government *preferred* the "Russian" approach, it's more that they were the ones who actually made something happen. None of the sources tell us anything more about what the "Germans" got up to after the split.
It included a day care center and a communal kitchen Did the organization included a day care center...?
Query I'm not sure what you mean by this.
It may be the consequence of language barrier.
Modified the language slightly for clarity.
..."mostly factory and shop girls"... Rephrase.
Modified
Why was the school closed?
Comment: Zelnik goes into great detail, but in summary: all Sunday schools were coerced into government control or closed, because they were seen as a threat to established authority and a possible breeding ground for subversives and liberals. I've added a phrase to make clearer that Stasova's school was not specifically targeted.
Introduce Maria Dondukova-Korsakova, Anna Engelhardt, Evgenia Konradi, Elena I. Likhacheva, and Konstantin Pobedonostsev.
Query Could you clarify what sort of introduction you had in mind?
Just one or two words (author, activist, noblewoman, etc.)
...the relevant minister... Could his ministry be specified?
Comment: he was Minister of National Enlightenment, which did have responsibility for the education system, but also had some connections to religious matters and to science/patents/etc. I decided, on balance, it was simpler to just say "relevant minister" than try to explain the complexities of the Tsarist government.
Perhaps he could be mentioned as "who was responsible for the education system as the Minister of National Enlightenment".
Modified per your suggestion.
Do we know why the Tsar supported lectures to women?
Comment: the sources are a little unclear, except to say that Filosofova's husband (a top aide to Milyutin) had influence over him (Muravyeva). In general the Tsars (and Tolstoy) were concerned that if they did not allow Russian women to be educated in Russia, they would leave for Zurich, where they would be outside government control and monitoring. I mention this in a subsequent paragraph.
A link to Vladimir college?
Comment: No link available, I believe.
Do we know why the Vladimirski lectures were closed?
Comment: The sources are a bit vague, but the best I can figure out is they were closed as part of a reshuffling of the supervision of women's education. Women's higher education (the Bestuzhev courses) were approved in April 1876, though they wouldn't actually get going until 1878. Johanson states, p. 43, that St. Petersburg women recognized the upcoming expansion of opportunity and were fine with giving up the Vladimirskii lectures, which were less advanced than they wanted.
Comment: - Stites just says ...so-called German faction - meaning some baronesses of German or Baltic extraction, which isn't very helpful. I'm not sure there's a better way to phrase it in the article without making an assumption.
Voting myself onto the central committee for this one. Apologies Ganesha811 for missing your ping up there—this is an excellent series of articles, and I look forward to reviewing it tomorrow. Although I might have to oppose now, on principle... ——Serial Number 5412913:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
Overall
You should check to see that you are consistent with whether you use the serial comma or not – it appears in some places, but not others
Fixed I believe it is now used consistently across the article.
IB
"Nationality Russian Empire": per MOS:INFONAT this field "should not be used."
Removed
Lead
"They founded": as it's a new paragraph, it's probably best to start with "The triumvirate founded" for clarity
Modified per suggestion
Early life
"served as Stasova's godfather": does one "serve" as a godparent? (wouldn't "Tsar Alexander I of Russia was Stasova's godfather" work better?)
Modified per suggestion
"However": this can be safely struck, with the sentence starting at "In later years..."
Modified per suggestion
Career
"retained their stations in the good graces of the upper class": A little too purple for me, and I think it fails MOS:IDIOM. Maybe bring in line with encyclopaedic wording?
Fixed, I hope. This one was a pain - the sources do emphasize the point, but there was no specific anecdote I thought was worth pulling in, so summarization was a bit tougher than I hoped. I agree the wording I had was awkward - I've changed it to read ...were not radical in public style or fashion, and were not ostracized by other members of the upper class for their work.
Higher education
"a carefully worded petition": I'm not sure we need 'carefully worded': it was unlikely to be sloppily written (and describing it as 'carefully worded' is POV, without attribution)
Modified per suggestion - the sources do mention this aspect, but it's not a very important detail as you point out.
"pedagogical": it may be worth linking this to the Wiktionary – it's not a common enough word for many to readily understand
Done
Later career
"Stasova served as a mentor": Just "She" will do here
This is not a subject I know anything about, but the article seems to my layman's eye to be thorough, balanced and well sourced. A few minor points on the prose:
"and read much French literature, as well as the work of the feminist George Sand" – what is Sand's work if not French literature?
"She spent a number of years abroad" – vague. Is the number of years not verifiable?
"with whom she was very close" – with whom she was very close to what? Perhaps "to" rather than "with" here?
"In contrast to the contemporaneous Russian nihilist movement" – do things contrast to, rather than with?
"The triumvirate, alongside a number of others" – another vague "a number of". A few? A lot?
"government support provided only 7% of the budget" – it is normal to use "percent" rather than the % symbol in prose, keeping the symbol for charts and suchlike.
"and tuition was therefore high" – I'm not at all sure what this means. Is there a word or two missing?
