Talk:Nina Popova (official)

Photos

Photo discussion is here. SusunW (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nina Popova (official)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SusunW (talk · contribs) 14:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 16:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Will review this one. Review to follow over the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Content and prose review

Early life and education

• I do not think the family details should be stated in wikivoice. Talaver 2023 attributes them to Borisova and does not mention the names or the relation to the archbishop, or the details of what they ate to avoid starvation (some of this might be family legends).

Specifically Talaver says "the documents about Popova's childhood, family, and adolescence are not available to the public; thus, I have relied on the version of her biography as described by Natalia Borisova and Popova's daughter [Renita Grigorieva] in Grigorieva, Golub' mira Niny Popovoi". note 18 p. 261. Talaver "relied" upon them, so I am not sure why we would question them, but I have followed your suggestion. SusunW (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Talaver is careful not to report all of it as unquestionable facts, so we should follow her lead. I have one more question: should there be an explicit footnote for Julian/Gregorian date? —Kusma (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I had ns/os dates in the article and a drive-by editor took them out. You know my preference is to show the actual date, so I added the info to the footnote. SusunW (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure the "elevator" is a grain elevator, compare s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Elets.

Linked. SusunW (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Good. It is actually the first grain elevator in Russia :)

• Did the mother die during the 1921/22 famine, or soon after the father's 1920 death? In the lead she seems to die in 1920.

Specifically when she died, I don't know. Talaver says both parents died when Nina was twelve. Borisova says the mother survived the father and they were living in the time of famine. Officially the famine wasn't recognized until March 1921, but clearly crops failed before that date and a death threshold was met for that to be officially declared. (I personally know people who died from Covid before the pandemic was declared, but it wouldn't occur to me that their deaths weren't part of the pandemic.) Conceivably the mother could have died anywhere from August to early January 1921, Popova would have still been 12, and that would have been soon after the father's death. Happy to reword this if you find it problematic. SusunW (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is part of the slightly unclear early history, so it is not too problematic.

• Borisoglebsk: mention where it is? (350km/over 200 miles ESE from Yelets?)

I've done this, but I cannot find any source in Russian or English other than map calculators that gives that information, which makes me uncomfortable in a GA. SusunW (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If it makes you uncomfortable better remove it.

• Do we know anything about the background and the patronymic of Andrey Shamshin? (the article Renita Grigoryeva states "Andrei Semyonovich Shamshin (1903–1972), a scientist-agronomist")

Nothing. Neither of the sources in our article on Grigoryeva even give his name, nor does the cinamatographer's union obituary. WPru says he was an agronimist and cites it to this, which only gives his name and says he studied at the Agricultural Academy. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

But it does give his patronymic, and https://cyclowiki.org/wiki/Андрей_Семёнович_Шамшин (can't be linked) is an unreliable article about him, so he is a bit notable.

• She did not really study at Moscow State University, but at ru:Московский институт философии, литературы и истории, which as far as I can tell was independent at the time.

fixed link SusunW (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• My inner language nerd would prefer to see the Renita initialism explained in Cyrillic, but that is certainly not in the GA criteria.

To me, that would work if her name was given in Cyrillic as well, but for the benefit of English speakers, the Latinized version is easier for them to see how the name was invented. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Career

Early period:

• "Moscow Marxist–Leninist University for Science, Technology, and Engineering Workers" can't find it under this name. The source (Prominent personalities) notes it is the "Timiryazevo Branch"; Borisova says "Нине поручают организацию Тимирязевского филиала Московского университета марксизма-ленинизма". I am wondering if this is related to Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy. It certainly sounds like it is in Timiryazevsky District.

No idea. Timiryazev Agricultural Academy IS where her husband went to school. SusunW (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If we can't find more, we use what the sources say.

• Golovchanskaya is also a slightly odd source.

It's a newspaper, not sure what "slightly odd" means. I've used it 5 times, to explain how she met Orlov, to explain in more detail what Talavar p. 248 says was "responsible for almost every detail of people's lives in Krasnaya Presnya", to confirm they wrote letters and he died (which is verified in other sources), to note her presence at the world congress in France (also verified in other sources), and to confirm her death and burial (also verified in other sources). I don't see any of the claims being widely controversial. SusunW (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The presentation including (invented?) dialogue as well as the title are what strikes me as a bit unusual, more suitable for a magazine than a scientific article. But I agree that there is little reason to doubt the claims.

• The unfaithful husband fathering a child is only in Borisova?

Talavar says there was "infidelity" on his part and Popova divorced him. She also said the divorce was covered in "Дело агронома Шамшиной" in Pravda on 19 March 1938, but I cannot find it. Happy to remove the bit about the child. It makes no real difference. SusunW (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I found the article, but I don't know enough Russian to understand whether the divorce was alluded to in the article (which seems to try to defend Shamshin against various allegations). It certainly doesn't seem to be "covered". —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps ask GRuban to read it? SusunW (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but please be specific; what do you want me to read? Can you give a link? --GRuban (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@GRuban: Page 3, bottom right. Could you skim-read this and see if there is anything about his divorce or infidelity? —Kusma (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• "When World War II broke out, Popova became responsible for functioning and security in the Krasnopresnensky District." can you say that more precisely? In 1939, the war was the Soviet Union attacking Poland and Ukraine (see Soviet Union in World War II), and there was little need for camouflage. Operation Barbarossa started mid-1941. What is "functioning"?

Again, Talavar says was "responsible for almost every detail of people's lives in Krasnaya Presnya", i.e. functioning, day to day activities. She also specifically says "Her wartime duties at that post included...camouflaging the key factories". Perhaps she's wrong, but I have no evidence to make an assumption that she is. I changed When World War II broke out to During the early years of World War II. Does that help? SusunW (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Better.

• Your transliteration of Russian is a bit inconsistent.

I'm happy to ask GRuban to take a look again if he has time. But it would be easier if you specified what you find problematic for me. SusunW (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I am a native Russian reader (more or less) and glad to help, especially if specifics are pointed out. Just to start, though, is it all right if we use the English terms for things wherever possible, either solely or as primary? It's pretty rare that a term loses a lot in translation, and the transliteration similarly rarely helps.

The first three examples of changes I would make if I could, from the lede:

• Sovpartshkola [ru] -> Soviet Party School - we don't have an article for this, but the translation is reasonably self explanatory, it's a school where you are taught to be a good party member (with all the Orwellian implications that entails!)
• Antifashistskii Komitet Sovetskikh Zhenshchin (Antifascist Committee of Soviet Women, AKSZh) -> Antifascist Committee of Soviet Women - a fine if stubby article ("successfully combine the role of mother, worker, and citizen"! Girl bosses of the world, eat your hearts out!), and again the title explains it reasonably well
• Vsesoiuznoe Obshchestvo Kul'turnoi Sviazi s zagranitsei (All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries, VOKS -> VOKS (All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries). I would have gone for the English term to name the article, but I didn't write it, so we should use the link for the article we have. The Transliteration doesn't help much, I think.

--GRuban (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks George. I changed all of these in the lede. SusunW (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Better! My point was that -ий is sometimes transliterated -ii and sometimes -y. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Activism:

• Scholar Alexandra Talavar stated that Popova's activism for women's rights was rooted to the socialist framework in that she viewed gender inequality in terms of economic systems hmmm.. "rooted in"?

changed. SusunW (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm looking at the wrong version, but does your de Haan 2012, p. 11. include children? And is it the "members" that believe it or is it the organisational credo that peace is a prerequisite for obtaining rights for women?

"peace was not regarded nor presented as the organization's single goal but rather as the necessary precondition for its other three aims: anti-fascism/democracy, women's rights and children's rights. From the beginning, these causes were seen and explained as interrelated. Women's rights, thus, were not a minor or additional part of the WIDF agenda; indeed, they were a fundamental conviction for Eugénie Cotton and other leading WIDF women" p. 11. Definitely includes children and I guess both individual belief and organizational credo. Added "and the organizational credo held", if that works. SusunW (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

ok.

• Membership in the Antifascist Committee of Soviet Women, called the Komitet Sovetskikh Zhenshchin (Committee of Soviet Women, KSZh) from 1956,[27] was recommended by the Communist Party, the organizational funding came from the Soviet Ministry of Finance, and the annual plans for the KSZh were approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. can you simplify this? The Committee was renamed КСЖ in 1956. The Communist Party recommended membership (to whom?) and approved the annual plans. It was funded by the Soviet Ministry of Finance.

Done, but I am a bit confused by your query of to whom, it seems clear to me that the party told the executive of the KSZh who could join the organization. It doesn't seem likely that the KSZh could have ignored the party "advice". SusunW (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I misunderstood the original. I thought that the CP has recommended to women in Moscow to become members (advertising), not that membership was conditional on their approval.

• Sovetskaia zhenshchina what transliteration is this? It looks a bit French style (I would expect Sovetskaya or Sovyetskaya or something). See Romanization of Russian.

The link to the magazine says "Sovetskaya zhenshchina" so I've changed it to that. SusunW (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• The organization also created study stipends to allow women and girls from developing countries to further their education simplify? "The organisation also funded educational stipends for women and girls from developing countries"?

Done. SusunW (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Later career:

• Is it "deputy of the Supreme Soviet" or "deputy to the Supreme Soviet"?

I would say deputy of, i.e. member of, representative of, leader of. To sounds weird to me, but you tell me which you prefer and I'm happy to use that. SusunW (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I found both in sources, so do what you like. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Despite the stress on diplomatic relations caused by the incident, she stressed the importance of continuing work to thaw the Cold War relations hmm, "stress"... "stressed" is not quite optimal, and this seems rather an interpretation of the source than something it says directly.

Isn't all paraphrasing an interpretation? Source says "It was especially shocking…since the 'ice of the cold war [had begun] to melt'…Mrs. Popova said she thought that people here as everywhere desire 'normal human relations' and more contact with each other". and Sharley says Popova said, "In these circumstances, we have to work especially hard to see that the relationship between the people is strengthened…co-existence does not mean isolationism…[it] means the cooperation of all countries working together". I changed it to read "Despite the strain on diplomatic relations caused by the incident, she stressed the importance of continuing work to thaw the Cold War relations", if you think that needs to be changed, please advise. SusunW (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It can be left as is. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• Do you need the comma after "Historian Francisca de Haan"?

removed. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Not sure you need the transliterated Russian here.

Removed. SusunW (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• She was known for criticizing government policies and actions which impacted international relations this seems slightly overplaying it.

Modified. SusunW (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

• Not so sure Borisova should be treated as fully reliable; with the dialogue form, it seems closer to a primary than a secondary source to me.
• A few other comments above; happy with other spotchecks I did.

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Prose: a few comments above.
• MoS: only very minor issues.
• Ref layout is fine.
• Sources reliable, with some question marks on Borisova and similar.
• No original research or copyvio.
• Scope and level of detail are fine.
• Images: why is File:E Cotton+N Popova - femmes francaises 4Aout1951.jpg ok to use?

At the time it was added I checked the licensing and the Biblioteca said it was public domain. Now that wording is gone, so I have removed the photo. More difficult is the lede image. I keep removing it and people keep putting it back. You can see the discussion about it. It was created in March 1941 two months after the date needed to be in the PD in the US. I've removed both, but obviously cannot control whether they are re-added. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the French photo should be PD in France (unknown author, 70 years post publication). Don't ask me what the URAA does with that. —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Alt for last image: "dias" should be "dais"?

fixed. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Pics have ALTs that look OK to me. Do you have one for the infobox image?

done. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Are you sure that "official" is the best disambiguator?

official seemed shorter than civil servant. Not sure what else one would call her. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"activist" perhaps, but that depends on how we view the relationship between the various women's rights organisations and the Party. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the conundrum. In her case they cannot be separated, IMO. Her activism was done in an official capacity, not like she founded an independent peace movement like Olga Medvedkov. SusunW (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Another well-researched article on an under-appreciated woman. Not sure about the sourcing for the early life though (sounds too much like family legends to me to be stated in wikivoice). @SusunW: awaiting your responses. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you Kusma, and the review. Your insights always improve articles and I am grateful for your time. I think I have addressed everything, but if you need me to look at it again or want to discuss anything, just ping me. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That is bad luck with the image (a few months). Did you see this [1]? Apparently they have pictures of her parents. Not sure how reliable this is. Anyway, I think we are mostly done (I'd like to see more about Shamshin but that is optional; his patronymic I think should be in the article though). —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I included the patronymic. Yes, I'd love more photos, but I think it would require someone actually being in Russia or having ready access to Russian archives. I love the photos in that link you found. Would that we could source publishing data on them. I can't wait to see what George finds in the Pravda article. He swears I have a knack for finding people with messy relationships. I tell him, messy is normal. SusunW (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It certainly shows these are real people :) —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (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.