This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
Latest comment: 1 year ago46 comments3 people in discussion
FAILED
Review closed as unsuccessful. Nominator was given ample time to respond to comments, but a number remain unaddressed nearly 2 months after the review opened. The nominator is advised to be more prompt in addressing reviewers' concerns in future nominations. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
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.
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.
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.
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
"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".
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.
"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?
"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.
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".
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.
"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.
"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".
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All photographs are relevant to the subject and properly captioned, but they could do with alt text.
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
@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
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.
