Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Filosofova/archive1

Anna Filosofova

Featured article candidates/Anna Filosofova/archive1

Nominator(s): —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Anna Filosofova, 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 Nadezhda Stasova. Among other things, Filosofova pushed hard for women's education and was instrumental in creating university-standard courses open to women in the Russian Empire. She outlived her colleagues and became widely acclaimed after the 1905 Russian Revolution. The article underwent a GA review from Rusalkii in March.

The other two women's articles made it to FA earlier this year. The three articles have very similar sourcing, so any reviewers who participated in those ones may be interested in this nomination as well. Reviewers from the Trubnikova/Stasova articles will already be familiar with some of the content and most of the sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size

Fixed

File:Анна_Павловна_Философова.jpg needs a US tag

Added

File:Anna_Filosofova_2_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Анна Павловна Философова. Почтовая открытка (cropped).jpg which I believe will work better and has appropriate tags.

Source review

Indeed, I reviewed Maria, but pretty much missed out on Nadezhda. The Sistas are in: and at the frontline.

Formatting is mostly fine. ISBNs are inconsistently laid out, no need to link locations (if you insist on it, link all); likewise publishers; likewise works themselves. Authors are all established historians (Central European, Pittsboig, Northwestern, McGill, Princeton) or independent scholars with reputable publishers. A search of academic databases reveals no obvious omissions from the canon—except slightly surprisingly, no Clements, Carlson or Worobec who surely would've been good for a punt—and nothing that jumps out as outremer. A slender and well-presented article, traits reflected in the sources used. Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 15:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the ISBNs are now consistent, and I've delinked the publisher locations. Thanks for the Carlson theosophy source - very interesting and provided a couple of new details which I've added. I don't think there's much in the Clements source that isn't already covered, and Worobec is in the article already - a chapter from it by Ruthchild is cite #2. Thanks for your review thus far. :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]