Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Women in Green Homepage Current Featured Content DYK 2024 Goal Tracking Events Talk/Discussion 

Autumn 2023 backlog

[edit]

There's still work to do on the summer backlog! But as the seasons continue to change, I thought I'd compile our backlog for the autumn season of 2023 as well. This includes leftovers from our last edit-a-thon. I have provisionally commented out December, as the list would be too long to deal with otherwise.

Please do help review these articles if and when you can. The quicker we can cut down on the backlog, the more incentive people have to submit their articles on women and women's works! Grnrchst (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now cut all of the nominations that have been reviewed, thanks to everyone that took on those! December list has now been restored. Let's get this backlog down! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I struck a few more that were drive-bys, reviewed, or withdrawn. The rest of the list is nominations by Iaof2017 that were removed after a period of inactivity. If the nominator chooses to re-activate the noms, I'm not sure if they'd still count as part of the Autumn 2023 backlog. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winter 2024 backlog

[edit]

Hi everyone, hope you've all been doing well these past few months. It's almost May, so I've had a look at our backlog of GA nominations of articles on women and women's works. Here's what we've got to work on:

If you're interested in taking one of these on for review, please do! Remember we also have articles to review from last year, so check out the above lists as well. I hope you find something interesting to read about in these articles, and hope to see the backlog cut down a bit as well! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Routledge

[edit]

We have a mediocre article on pioneering archaeologist Katherine Routledge on enwiki, but fr:Katherine Routledge is GA- if not FA-level. If there is anyone who is interested in expanding it by translating from French, it could be an easy win for WiG. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Katherine Routledge in the french version. – Joe (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sororité

[edit]

Hi everyone! If like me, you watched the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics yesterday, you might have felt a bit moved by the section on Sororité, which highlighted the role of women in French society and prominent women in French history. To draw attention to the gender imbalance of statues in the city, 10 women were honoured with gold statues during the procession:

Of these ten, only Milliat's article is currently GA-rated, so I thought I'd raise them here as targets for improvement over the course of this year's Olympiad. Hope you're all having a wonderful summer and enjoy the games if you plan on watching them! All the best, --Grnrchst (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you take Christine de Pizan to GAN, please do let me know! I'd love to review it. I wouldn't say I'm a Christine specialist, but I've written professionally on Christine and am familiar with the historiography. I don't think I'll ever get to trying to bring her article up to GA myself, since it's in the uncomfortable zone where I'm not so familiar with the topic that I can write the article off the top of my head, but it's too much like my actual job for me to want to put in the research time while I'm in wikipedia hobby-writing mode. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the article on Christine de Pizan already looks like it might be GA ready, it seems very good to me as someone without much expertise on the subject. Pinging @Akhenaten0: as you're the active user with highest authorship, do you think this is GA ready and would you be interested in nominating it for GAN? Or does it still need work? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s almost there. I wish the article had more modern scholarship, but I really think the article needs more of her other works in the “Works” section; several more than the big two have full articles, but only Book and Treasure are mentioned on her page. Also, it would be good in an EN Wikipedia article to translate her titles in the list at the bottom. Akhenaten0 (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A recent source on the state of feminism/gender studies and Christine would probably help a lot too. I'm seeing a lot of 1990s feminist stuff in there and, well... Feminism in the 90s sure was A Time. For someone who has mostly been studied from a gender perspective it's probably a good idea to grab a much more recent source and skim through it for updates. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qiyu Zhou listed at Requested moves

[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Qiyu Zhou to be moved to Nemo Zhou. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Spring 2024 backlog

[edit]

Hey all, back again to highlight the backlog of GA nominations about women and women's works! Just wanted to take a moment to extend my thanks to asilvering (talk · contribs) for coordinating the July GAN backlog drive, which has seen the backlog reduced by about a quarter and introduced many new people to the reviewing process! We still have a backlog on nominations from Winter 2024 and Autumn 2023, which you can find above. Here's some articles from Spring 2024 that still need reviewing:

This is quite the list, so let's get some of this backlog down! --Grnrchst (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing these out like this! By the way, I can report that the system we used during this backlog drive where we had new reviewers have their work checked by experienced reviewers worked really well. It never seemed to be a real burden on the experienced reviewers - nothing at all like performing a full review! It's true, I think, that the kind of newbies who join a backlog drive specifically for newbies to learn how to do GA reviewing are more likely to be conscientious new reviewers than some random sample of new GA reviewers at large. But I think that WiG would attract a similarly conscientious set of newbies, if we tried to do so. My perception of this project when I was new was that this was specifically for people who were interested in writing the GAs about women. A recruitment blast at WiR with the aim of pulling in new reviewers rather than writers specifically may well help get through this backlog and keep it down over time. Thoughts? -- asilvering (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely be up for us doing a reviewer recruitment drive. For the record, I think this project should be for both writing and reviewing GAs. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio question

[edit]

Hello, I would like some advice about the copyvio tool. I have been updating this article Australian women in World War I, with the intention of getting it to GA status. There is still a bit more to fix up, so I am not ready to submit it yet.

I just put it through the Copyvio tool, just to check if I have inadvertently copied something too closely, and it highlighted a few websites as quite similar. One of which is over 54% similar. They are pages that I have definitely used as references. But the things that it highlights as similar are primarily titles of things, such as "Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service (QAIMNS)" and "in the Australian Army Nursing Service (AANS)", or quotes which I have referenced. I don't think these are things that I would think of as being a plagiarism. But I want to check, do you think there are things I need to change? AdaWoolf (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These tools only check similarity, so it's quite common for titles and direct quotes to contribute to the percentage. So long as the quotes are properly attributed in-text, it shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't worry too much about it :) --Grnrchst (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though, if you're worried about having inadvertently copied too closely, make sure you go down the list further than just those 54% similar ones. I stopped checking at like 20% or so when I was helping someone else prep an article for GAN before, and the reviewer found a sentence that had been almost completely lifted that I'd missed because it was only at 14% or something. The ones at 54% are fine. Think of them as a honeypot for inexperienced reviewers, haha. -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! okay great. Thank you for the advice @Grnrchst and @Asilvering. I will dig through the list and see if anything significant comes up. :)
AdaWoolf (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realise this discussion is stale, but for future reference... A while back I wrote an essay on the mistakes people make using our copyvio detection tools, which includes a section on precisely this issue. Reviewers do sometimes say "Earwig gave a [percentage] chance of this being copyvio, therefore it fails criterion 2d" but they shouldn't and if you can explain why it's not problematic despite Earwig flagging the article they should accept that. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if they don't, and you can't convince them, please grab an experienced reviewer for backup or head to WT:GAN about it. I normally am really against bringing poor or questionable reviews to that talk page (way too public, I think it's unhelpfully embarrassing to the person who screwed up and also can put off future reviewers who see that kind of thing on the talk page), but this one is both really easy to sort out and really important to clear up asap for all involved. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August check-in & plans for next WiG Editathon

[edit]

Hey everyone -- how are you? How are things going in your part of the world? I've just heard that WiG member Grnrchst was recently selected as an Editor of the Week for Aug. 11 -- congrats Grnrchst! :-) It feels like we've only just wrapped up our last editathon in June, but October is visible on the horizon again, and now is probably a good time to chat about plans for our second event of 2024. Do you have any suggestions or comments? Proposed themes? Do you want to be part of the event organizing team? Last October we hosted our "Around the World in 31 Days" editathon, and I thought it went really well (I'd be happy to organize around the same theme again, but I'm open to something different too). Let me know what you think. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that will coincide with the next GAN backlog drive! We don't have a theme for it yet, but I'll try to keep WiG in mind. October will be too late to submit GANs to be reviewed in it, but if the October WiG editathon includes reviewing in some way, everyone can double-count their reviews. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: That's good to know! All our WiG editathons accept GA reviews as part of the submitted work (not just GA nominations), so it would be great to get reviewers working in tandem. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Do you have thoughts on how we can integrate our edit-a-thon with the backlog drive? I want to try encouraging reviewing more with this one; the previous Around the World edit-a-thon got a lot of nominations reviewed, so I'm hoping for a repeat on that. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog drive is going to focus on reviewing GANs by editors who don't have many GAs yet, and it's going to have a set list of articles to work from. So it should be easy enough to pull all the WiG-related articles out of the list to make our own WiG-specific list to target. -- asilvering (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the "by country" and "by century" themes, my takeaway is that we want a theme where there's probably something for your interests across the board. If you're interested in writing about actresses, just about any country will have a subject to write about, but you're only going to be able to go back two or three centuries. "One per country" is probably my favorite theme, but here's some brainstorming: one for each letter, as many different professions or claims to notability as possible, women that have won different awards (Nobel prizes, Olympic medals, etc), born in each month of the year or day of the month, or as many different native languages as possible. Some of these would be harder to search for with categories, but there are options. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having recently gone through Women in Red's alphabet run, I like the idea of doing a "one for each letter" event. It's definitely going to be less restrictive than the by century edit-a-thon, although some letters are definitely going to be more tricky to do than others. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien and Grnrchst: Great suggestions and feedback, thanks! I agree that the most effective themes are ones that allow people to work from a wide range of interests and backgrounds. "One for each letter of the alphabet" sounds like a fun challenge, and it would allow for a wide range of interests -- but I'm still finding myself leaning towards "one per country" again, which also specifically encourages more geographic diversity. What if we go with countries for October, but book the new alphabet theme for our first event of 2025? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with that! I really did enjoy the country theme last year. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy to help coordinate! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: I'd love to have your help again. :-) Want to be co-coordinators this time? It might be easiest to balance the workload that way. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds great aye. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: Fabulous! Okay, I'll send you a quick email today to chat about event planning/logistics. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page for the October 2024 edit-a-thon has been set up! Feel free to sign yourself up if you want to participate. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanna the Brave, BennyOnTheLoose, Caeciliusinhorto, Mujinga, and Vanamonde: Pinging the previous year's 20 minute reviewers. Would any of you be interested in doing 20 minute reviews for next month's edit-a-thon? Grnrchst (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happy to help. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Vanamonde93. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to, particularly as I'm unlikely to have the time to do many full reviews. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'll help with this again. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose and Vanamonde93: I've completed the first couple of 20-minute assessment requests, but we've got three more waiting. If you have time, can you tackle them this weekend? Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to touch anything before Sunday, I'm afraid, and it might be as late as next week. But at that point I will do my best to clear out any that remain. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ju-ae listed at Requested moves

[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kim Ju-ae to be moved to Kim Jong Un's daughter. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Procedurally removed nominee on Goal-Tracking List?

[edit]

I just went through all of the articles marked as nominated but not yet reviewed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green/Goal Tracking/2024 because I noticed a couple which I knew had since become GAs, and I noticed that Tamara Bunke is no longer a GA nominee not because it has been reviewed but because it was procedurally removed due to the nominator being blocked. Do we have an agreed way of dealing with this? The options I see are either to mark it as a failed nominee, or to simply remove it from the list. I'm inclined towards the former (it was nominated in good faith, and it did fail to become a good article, even if not through precisely the usual route) but it's a sufficiently unusual situation I thought I'd ask here first... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: Hmm! I would be inclined to agree with you -- if it was nominated in good faith, and the nominator was clearly working to improve the article, then it may as well stay on our goal list. Perhaps mark it as failed, but include a short note of explanation in parentheses as well? Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green&oldid=1258165703"