Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
August Editathons at Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women's shelter
Greetings,
Request for inputs: A Peer review request has been made for the article Women's shelter to brainstorm and understand information gaps and uncovered areas and to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved, please do share your inputs at the review page.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
FAR for Joan of Arc
I have nominated Joan of Arc for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
October 2021 at Women in Red
Special event:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women's rights by year article(s)
Women's rights in 2014 exists, but we have no other articles (that I could find) for women's rights that focus on a specific year (apart from drafts by Rhododendrites). An AfD in 2015 found a clear consensus to keep, although now that we're further out, I suspect anyone who tried might find some !voters agreeing on a WP:TYT fail. How should we handle this? The two paths we could take are to:
- Decide that every year in modern history should have an article on women's rights in that year, and start creating articles accordingly.
- Decide that it's not appropriate per WP:NOTNEWS to have that level of detail, and upmerge to women's history articles across a broader timespan.
The argument for option 2 is that, given our current editorial capacity, getting into yearly detail before we've covered the basics is putting the cart before the horse. The argument for option 1 is that any topic that passes GNG should be allowed, even if we still lack a broader framework in which to insert. I'm curious to hear what others think on this. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- It was a while ago, but if I recall correctly, I started User:Rhododendrites/Women's rights in 2013 after seeing Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) and thinking about how massively long it would be for that timeline to adequately cover its subject. I saw that Women's rights in 2014 already existed, so went ahead with 2013. Unfortunately, I didn't bring that draft up to the point where I felt like it should be in mainspace and then [repeatedly] forgot about it [for long periods of time]. But that's how I see it -- as one page of a fundamentally broken-up timeline of a highly notable subject.
I felt (and still feel) like framing it as a timeline and allowing a yearly snapshot has encyclopedic potential. It would be a massive project to complete it, yes, but I'm generally wary of arguments not to do something because we lack volunteer capacity (Wikipedia would've never gotten off the ground otherwise, of course), except when there's a good alternative. So sometimes I think maintaining a list doesn't make sense when a category does a good enough job, but other times I think it's worth doing because you never know what volunteers will decide to take on. "YYYY in women's rights" would be a great fit for edit-a-thons or classroom assignments, after all. Curious what others think, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Requesting inputs for the article lead image
Hi, This is User:Bookku requesting your valuable inputs for the article lead image @ Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Lead image.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Alpha Kappa Alpha for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
December 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
FAR for Uncle Tom's Cabin
I have nominated Uncle Tom's Cabin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 07:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Survey about History on Wikipedia
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
January 2022 Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Captain Thuridur page
This is great to have this page, but, while citing my work, it contains several errors. I cannot figure out how to send a message to the writer. If they could please email me, I will tell them the errors so they can correct it. Thank you. Margaret WillsonCascadepass2021 (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cascadepass2021: Hi, I will make general comments about how to approach this here, but any specific comments should go on the talk page, Talk:Foreman Thuridur, for the Foreman Thuridur article.
- To get a specific editor's or editors' attention, use the {{ping}} template. For instance, to get my attention, you would place
{{ping|Peaceray}}on a talk page. Someone wanting to get both your and my attention would place{{ping|Cascadepass2021|Peaceray}}. - As an author, presumably of Seawomen of Iceland: Survival on the Edge, you would be wise to declare a conflict of interest (COI) about your work. This is a pro forma statement that will proactively help address any conflict of interest problems. There are two steps to this.
- Declare on your user page, as User:Jonathanlyn has done on his user page. In this case you would be adding a statement about the books you have written at User:Cascadepass2021.
- Add the {{Connected contributor}} to the bottom of the talk page lead at Talk:Foreman Thuridur. You can see an example of Jonathanlyn's use of the template at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You would add something like
{{Connected contributor |User1=Cascadepass2021|U1-declared=yes |U1-otherlinks=[[User:Cascadepass2021]]}}. Technically theU1-otherlinks=should use a {{diff}} or a URL linked to the change, but I can help out with that later.
- Once you have done this, I believe that you would be generally okay to make edits that cite material other than your book.
- If you have changes that concern the material in your book, you should use the {{request edit}} on the talk page to avoid any COI problems.
- To get a specific editor's or editors' attention, use the {{ping}} template. For instance, to get my attention, you would place
- I hope this helps. I will ping the concerned editor(s) at Talk:Foreman Thuridur. Peaceray (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The Well of Loneliness under FA review
I started the formal FA review on The Well of Loneliness. Your input there and further contributions to the article are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:George Ho has nominated The Well of Loneliness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Zelda Fitzgerald under FA review
Zelda Fitzgerald has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Flask (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on the Education of Daughters Featured article review
I have nominated Thoughts on the Education of Daughters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Julia Colman / Julia Coleman
Julia Colman / Julia Coleman need sorting out. I suspect "Colman" is correct, but some sources use "Coleman". Also needs sorting in Commons and Wikidata. Any takers? Nurg (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty sure "Colman" is correct – that seems to be the name her works were published under. Normally I would say the solution would simply be to replace Julia Coleman with a redirect, but there's also Julia Coleman (politician) who might not need the disambiguating parenthetical in that case. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
February with Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Village Pump proposals regarding sourcing requirements and presumption of notability of athletes
Your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:
- Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
- Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
- Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
- Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
- Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
- Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
- Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
- Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
Katherine Hoover
Contemporary classical music composer. Please, seeking help from an interested person refining Katherine's article.
Is it proper trying to add correctly worded versions of the following with citations? Most of her career ID pre internet. Internet citations of news and magazine articles do not exist
My opinion As a non expert,
- Katherine seems a significant glass ceiling braker of the male dominated contemporary classical composers world.
- bringing a unique pov to composition via through her music theory academic background. She has been complimented for her originality.
- rearranging old compositions adapting to modern instruments.
- wanting performers to enjoy and excel at playing interesting works without overwhelming them in contrast to many composers who seem to enjoy being abusive.
- fighting for women's right, abused animals, oppressed minorities especially indigenous peoples of the Americas.
Can any part of the following be added to her article? This article originally appeared in Issue 22:5 (May/June 1999) of Fanfare Magazine. Female composers have had a hard time of it in Western musical culture. They’ve been traditionally depicted as mere ancillaries to their legitimately ordained male counterparts. Katherine Hoover, already fairly well represented on the Leonarda label, may strike some of you as a grudgingly ordained female composer. Make no mistake; she’s a composer. Her language is post-Wagner, post-Webern, post-whatever … a catchall label that has been forwarded to define music that’s difficult and beyond the ken of so-called normal commercial audiences. She is decidedly not a late-20th-century neo-Romantic hoping to cull record sales through a language that has been ripped off from Rachmaninov, Puccini, and their followers. Her music is at once forbiddingly stringent and uncompromising, demanding our utmost attention and concentration in order to succeed. She’s also tunefully virtuosic in the same way that Haydn was—able to make her language relate to ours, whatever its musical shortcomings. Katherine Hoover was born in West Virginia and now resides in New York. Educated at the Eastman School, she is a flutist with the rare credential of having been tutored by the legendary William Kincaid of the Philadelphia Orchestra. She is recipient of a 1979 National Endowment Composer’s Fellowship. So what? She has been anointed along with thousands of others. Why should we possibly pay attention to her music? Because it’s inventive and, in the final analysis, compelling in its own language and on its own terms. She has a gift for theater, and shows it in its most elemental and unadorned form. In these pieces, her methodology is decidedly modern. She proves to be a transcendentally compelling voice that bends the rules in the direction of pure affect. . . and one that ought to be heard. Eleni: A Greek Tragedy is told from a woman victim’s point of view, but one that’s universalized through Hoover’s language. The other pieces on this release show her prowess in dealing with tonalism stretched, but not broken. Two Sketches (1989) opens with aphoristic flute motives—they are two deftly crafted tone poems that run the gamut between purely lyrical tonalism and the most arcane and studied structuralism. She picks and chooses, and selects whatever will serve her purposes best. The Double Concerto celebrates Neoclassicism, but with melodic and harmonic turns that conjure up shades of late Shostakovich and Schnittke. It’s a brilliantly conceived and quite sad work that makes short moments of silence and sound equally telling. As for the final piece, Night Skies, an extended and timelessly Impressionistic symphonic poem with augmented percussion, go discover it for yourself. In all cases, these performances, captured in technically impeccable sound, make a strong and most satisfying case. William Zagorski
Thankyou, AjAirFlex (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
March editathons
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022
Hello everyone,
The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is now open! Voting commenced on SecurePoll on 7 March 2022 and will conclude on 21 March 2022. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.
The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. You can read more about the UCoC project.
You can also comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact the team by email: ucocproject
wikimedia.org
Sincerely,
Movement Strategy and Governance
Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
April Editathons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Featured Article Review for H.D.
I have nominated H.D. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Rose Levere
Jstor Daily published an article about Rose Levere, a potential subject for an article. I do not at present have the time to find additional sources to establish notability and write an article about her, so I am mentioning this here in case anyone else wants to take a stab at it. Donald Albury 18:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
"Transgender and transsexual" renaming discussion
There is an ongoing discussion concerning renaming "Transgender and transsexual" categories to just "Transgender". The discussion can be found here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, |
Requested move at Talk:Retrial of Joan of Arc#Requested move 18 April 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Retrial of Joan of Arc#Requested move 18 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 08:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
May Women in Red events
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
FAR
I have nominated Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ravenswing 02:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
June events from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
FAR for Anna May Wong
I have nominated Anna May Wong for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Natalie Clifford Barney Featured article review
I have nominated Natalie Clifford Barney for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award for Natalie Clifford Barney
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Natalie Clifford Barney/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Nancy Reagan
I have nominated Nancy Reagan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Sarah Trimmer
I have nominated Sarah Trimmer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in July 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in August 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
RfC on first sentence of Trans woman
Comments would be appreciated at Talk:Trans woman § RfC on first sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
RfC: A TikToker, ... , other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?
Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.
Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.
Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Hillary Clinton
User:Buidhe has nominated Hillary Clinton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in September 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Featured Article Save Award for Joan of Arc
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Good Article Editathon event in October 2022
Hello WikiProject Women's History:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Goldsztajn (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Women in Red October 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Mary Martha Sherwood Featured article review
I have nominated Mary Martha Sherwood for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
FAR notice
I have nominated Elizabeth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. John (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award for H.D.
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/H.D./archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)