Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

June check-in

Hi everyone -- how is your editing going? What are you working on right now? We're almost half-way through the year (woah), and I thought it might be nice to check in and see where we are with our various projects. I've been finding it difficult to focus on editing recently (too much stuff on my mind), but I've been working slowly on Gina Krog and the Edmonton Grads. Once I get through those articles, I'd like to tackle another suffragist or two from our list. Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm hip deep in a class-A review with the military project on the Inter-Allied Women's Conference. Until the photo part, it was going well. Aletta Jacobs should hit the front page with a DYK this week and then with a Featured Picture on the centennial of Dutch Suffrage in September. I'm also working on a Polish artist and suffragette, which I hope to finish this month for Pride. SusunW (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Sounds neat SusunW -- what's involved in a class-A review? Class-A articles seem to be a rare thing. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Great conversation starter! I'm trying to get access to newspapers.com through Wikipedia Library so I can have access to an obituary for Mamie Shields Pyle. It's a short wikipedia article, but a lot of short articles pass and it's fairly comprehensive based on the available material. It would also be my first article taken from red to green. After that, I want to finish working on Amy Poehler. I dove into that article last month and I'd like to get it across the finish line in the coming months.
I'd also like to work on the article of a suffragist who is a woman of color. Any interest in collaborating on one? Knope7 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Mamie Shields Pyle definitely looks like she's on her way to GA status. I'd be interested in collaborating on a suffragist, Knope7. Did you have an article in mind? Both Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti (Nigeria) and Doria Shafik (Egypt) struck me as interesting, but there are lots of other possibilities too. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alanna the Brave:, I'd be happy to contribute to an effort on Ransome-Kuti or Shafik although I must confess I don't know much about either woman and I am not sure how much help I would be. I'm definitely more at home with articles on American women. Maybe since there is still 6 months left in the year we can try to launch two collaborative efforts on women of color. Certainly there are plenty worthy candidates. Knope7 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Knope7: maybe Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin would be more up your alley? I find it enjoyable to work on articles about unfamiliar people/places, just because it's an opportunity for me to learn something totally new, but I know everyone has a home subject area they're more comfortable with. :-) Maybe I'll start working on Ransome-Kuti or Shafik later and then see if I can get your help with proofreading/copy editing as it shapes up? Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to give St Pierre Ruffin a try. I 'll also help with proof reading if you make a go at Ransome-Huti or Shafik. Knope7 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Knope7 Hope you get an account. In the meantime, here's the obit[1]. If you need anything else, I'll be happy to try to get it for you. Alanna the Brave I have to say me, the pacifist, having an article up for military review is pretty ironic. But, three editors (I had 4) must review and pass it, another one checks the sourcing, and another one checks the photos. Kinda like GA but more intense.[2] SusunW (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW:, this is fantastic! Thank you! Knope7 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
De nada Knope7. Like I said, if you need any others, just let me know. SusunW (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Félicette counts for this project, but hoping to get Valentina Tereshkova ready this month. I saw Knope comments on the talk page which led me here. Kees08 (Talk) 05:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
How's the Tereshkova article coming along, Kees08? I'm glad to see you're tackling it! If you'd like an extra hand with specific parts of the work, feel free to post to our GA Tasks Bulletin Board. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Very good! The review is currently ongoing. Coffeeandcrumbs nominated the article and has been addressing comments, so they can ask for help if need be. The article is several times better than what it used to be, which is very satisfying. Kees08 (Talk) 16:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

My Newspapers.com account expired at the worst time. I told the reviewer to hold for a bit before finishing the review. Everything upto and including the section named Vostok 6 is good and already reviewed.

The lead is a good outline I wrote for what should be mentioned and cited. The sections that need the most attention are as follows in order of worst to good:

  • Later political career --- She also had a Oblast (state) legislature political career which is not mentioned
  • After the Vostok 6 flight --- needs filling-in the post-flight celebrations section and more importantly her decades-long career as an astronaut instructor
  • Legacy --- needs a bit more expansion and copy-editing for flaw and readability
  • Personal life --- is fine but I wish there was more about her personal life than the propaganda wedding. I think she married for love the second time

I can link here from the GA Tasks Bulletin Board if that will help. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Replace list of Good Articles with automated list generated by a bot?

Hi everyone, I set up a bot (the JL-Bot) to generate the full list of Featured Articles and Good Articles from WikiProject Women and all of the various sub-projects. You can see what it looks like at the bottom of my sandbox.

I made sure that all of the GAs on our current list are also on the list generated by the bot. Any article that belongs on the list but isn't should be tagged with WikiProject Women or any of the subprojects. Conversely, any article that appears on the list but doesn't belong should have tags of those subprojects removed. The bot found a total of 285 FAs and 1258 GAs, which is slightly more than the GA count on our current list.

The bot updates the list about once every two weeks. This is the same bot that most WikiProjects already use to generate their lists of featured content.

Would people support replacing the manual list with the auto-generated one? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That's awesome, Sportsfan77777! As long as the bot works consistently, and covers all sub-projects, I'm all for it. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Me too! Anything that automates and makes our processes easier is a plus as long as it works. SusunW (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It would certainly save having to remember to update the page whenever an article is promoted! One oddity I noticed: Maymie de Mena is listed at the bottom of the Good Article list. I guess this is because her DEFAULTSORT value is "de Mena, Maymie", and the bot is sorting by ascii value? Would be nice if it sorted lower-case and upper-case the same...
I also notice that there are some inclusions in the GA list which we don't currently list. Some of them are... unexpected (e.g. Calcium, which is included as part of WikiProject Women's Health). Would be interesting to make a list of what the bot currently thinks we are missing from our list (and whether there is anything we are listing but the bot doesn't!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe all of the default sorts are supposed to be capitalized, even if the name isn't. (I fixed it for that one.) The articles that were missing from the bot list were things like fictional characters or works by women. Hardly any were regular bios. We can always de-tag articles like calcium if that's not wanted (though, at least in that case, there is a discussion of women's health in the article. I've de-tagged the color green from the women's sport project awhile back because I didn't understand the reason for the tag. Many of the weird ones may have been tagged by bots.) I believe the ones that are missing from our list may just be recent GAs. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Since there's support, I'll go ahead and change to the bot list. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks good! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Late to this party, but; anything we can do in terms of shifting edits that do not require the exercise of judgement to bots is a Good Thing. Editor time is our most precious resource. Thanks for putting this together. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hot 100 again

With 3 articles on our Hot 100 list now GAs, it might be time to think about who to put in their place...

The only woman listed as a Level 3 vital article who is not already a GA and is not on the Hot 100 is, I think, Catherine the Great, who seems like a fairly safe choice – on average I think she probably improves the chronological and geographical diversity of the list, and she is (hopefully) uncontroversially an important historical figure. I have gone through the first half of the Level 4 vital articles people category (up to the end of religious figures), and found 17 further candidates:

(I also had Bronte family on the list originally, but excluded it as a) not actually one person, and b) two Brontes are already on our list in their own right). Does anyone have any preferences for who to put up on the list? I'd be inclined to go for Meera and Teresa Teng as they are most different from what we currently have on the list – Meera for another earlier name, and a Hindu (for a religion with over 1bn followers, somewhat lacking on the list); Teresa Teng as she was Chinese (I don't see any Chinese names on the current list, unless I am missing something) – but I don't have a strong preference. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm somewhat biased in that I work primarily on political articles. That said, I'd encourage consideration of Indira Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto. The impact they had on South Asian politics was truly enormous. I'd certainly argue that Gandhi's influence outstrips that of Meera by some distance. Others may disagree, however. Another candidate that occurs to me is Annie Lennox. Also, while we're on the subject; how do people feel about listing FAs about women somewhere within this project? FAs are typically promoted from GA status; and we wouldn't ever send an FA to GAN; but the absence of those individuals about whom we have FAs from our lists is quite glaring. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I think both Indira Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto are definitely worthy names to have on the list. I'm less convinced by Lennox – singers are definitely overrepresented in our Hot 100 (I count 19 from the last 100 years, making almost 20% of our list, versus less than 8% of WP:VA/E/P categorised as musicians), and she wouldn't balance any other representational issues that I can see. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to dig through these Vital Articles, Caeciliusinhorto -- there are lots of good suggestions here. The last time WiG discussed additions to the Hot 100, it was noted that our current list is composed of about 79% North American and European women, so I definitely support the addition of articles from other regions of the world. We may as well aim for a range of occupations too. How about we start with Meera (Indian religious figure/poet) and Bhutto (Pakistani politician)? Another suggestion: Izumo no Okuni, the originator of Japanese kabuki theatre. The Hot 100 list is seriously lacking women from Central/South America and the Oceania region (even more so than women from Asia), but I don't have any good suggestions handy for those areas. Vanamonde -- the WikiProject Women mainpage currently links to a somewhat neglected list of FA articles, but I agree that it would make sense to track those articles here at WiG instead. Maybe we should start a new tab/page for that. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've taken a few names from each of our suggestions Benazir Bhutto, Catherine the Great, Izumo no Okuni, and Meera and swapped the (now four) GAs out for them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Theresa Goell

I am considering nominating Theresa Goell for good article assessment shortly; as my biography-writing experience on Wikipedia is for rather more ancient subjects, it would be very helpful if anyone interested would glance over the article and let me know if there are any glaring issues which need fixing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: At first glance it looks quite solid; one thing that did jump out at me was some issues with WP:PROSELINE. I don't know that that's something to fail a GA over, but it shouldn't be too hard to fix. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red's stub contest is starting now

Our three-month stub contest is starting now and will continue until the end of the year. Although there will be no physical prizes, each month (October, November and December) recognition will be given to the winners of two different sections: one for new stubs, the other for enhancing existing stubs to start class and beyond. The contest is open to all registered members of Women in Red. Join in now and help us improve women's coverage on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

A good candidate...

Esther Duflo

I think the new French Nobel prize winner Esther Duflo deserves to be brought up to GA fairly quickly. I've touched it up a bit but it really needs a lot more work. Hope others will be keen to collaborate.--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Goals

I am absolutely thrilled at how close we are to hitting our goals for the year. We only need 4 suffragists and 1 miscellaneous nomination to hit 40 articles. With only 2 months left, I am hoping we manage to pull it off. Anyone care to give an update on things you are working on? SusunW (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

For miscellaneous nominations, I may have Theoris of Lemnos ready soon. Given that we only need one more miscellaneous nom to push us over the mark, I'll try to get back into working on that. In the longer term but still potentially this year, there's CIL 4.5296 and Women in ancient Sparta. I also have my eye on Ithell Colquhoun, but that'll require a bunch more research from sources I don't have immediate access to: probably that's a job for next year at this rate. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
For suffragists: I'm currently working on Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti (Nigeria), and if I have time I'd like to work on Doria Shafik (Egypt) as well. For miscellaneous articles, I've been plugging away at the Edmonton Grads for a while now, and I'm aiming to finish that nomination before the end of the year. So many articles, so little time... ;-) I've been really happy to see our progress over the past few months! Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
In the miscellaneous regard, I’m doing what I can to bring a very old B-class level 5 article to Good Article status hopefully but let’s just say everyone’s a critic. Any help is appreciated. I do believe Heidi Cruz is good to go in my opinion and I presume it should be reviewed before the end of the year. If I can find ways to expound I will. Unfortunately, I know squat about suffragists to contribute to their articles. Trillfendi (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto and Alanna the Brave: Theoris of Lemnos and Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti both are fascinating. Thanks for working on them. I really enjoyed reading them. I will try to get Rosika Schwimmer up to snuff before the end of the year, but not sure that I will be able to. Trillfendi, honestly, I was focusing on teachers earlier in the year and ran into a whole slew of suffragists "by happy accident". Sometimes these things just fall into our laps :) SusunW (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Trillfendi:, it's great that you're tackling some big articles! Just a reminder on our goals, an article only has to be nominated, not reviewed. The article should also avoid a quick fail and the nominator should be a major contributor or have left a message on the talk page to give major contributors a chance to step-in. Knope7 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Throwing random opinions in the air, Caroline of Brunswick looks like a reasonably straightforward GA target, that ought to be doable if you get the correct 2-3 book sources that cover her life in depth. You probably want to get DrKay's advice on that one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Flora Fraser's 2012 biography is the most recent one. It's used in the article already but without page numbers. DrKay (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Since January I've taken Snakes and Earrings from this to this. Up to now I've only written (most of) one GA, which was a BLP, so I would greatly appreciate any advice from those of you with more book-related GA experience. Any advice on overall readiness for GA nomination would also be gratefully received. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Indignant Flamingo, I can't help you much, I typically write about dead women or conferences. However, that being said, it appears to be fairly comprehensive and well sourced, though I am confused why the plot section has no citations. SusunW (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, SusunW. Unless there is an issue of original research or interpretation that needs to be sourced, books are generally assumed to be the sources for descriptions of their own plots (MOS:PLOTSOURCE). Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I knew there must be a reason, as the rest of it was well cited. Goes back to why I said I can't help much other than to give you my overall sense, which is that it seems ready to be reviewed for GA. SusunW (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Should I...?

As of this afternoon I'm starting to believe that, if I and/or fellow project editors do the (strenuous) work required, that I/we could turn Dina Powell, from an article permeated with issues of things like vast original research via unregistered IPs, which I'm sure could be removed and rectified, and excruciating promotion, to possibly a Good Article within the next year or so. The career information is certainly there. The fact is she has undeniably accomplished so much in government and finance. So I ask, is it plausible? Is it worth it? A lot of stuff was removed including absolutely extreme sexism and puffery. Maybe some valuable career information went with it, which I could reassess I suppose. WDYT Trillfendi (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

2020 goals?

With only another fortnight to the end of the year, we have hit the target for miscellaneous noms, and are only one away from the suffragist articles target (thanks in no small part to SusunW and Ipigott, who are jointly-credited nominators for 12 suffragist articles and 5 miscellaneous articles!). With that in mind, does anyone have ideas for targets for next year? I've had a look through wikipedia's various year pages for centenary ideas (1920, 1820, 1720, 1620, 1520, and 1020) but nothing really jumped out at me as a theme. But in 2018 we (well, not me: I did nothing on wikipedia in 2018!) nominated 27 articles; this year we have nominated 40. Would 50 be too ambitious? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

And another suggestion occurred to me as I got home – is there any value to having a target for articles about women reviewed for GA by WP:WIG members? I know I reviewed a couple this year, but WP:GAN always has a backlog... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea to have a GAN target as well. It would encourage us to review each other's nominations more, among other things. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding a theme: our 2019 suffrage theme was chosen to complement Women in Red's year-long suffrage initiative. For 2020, Women in Red is currently leaning towards a sports/athletes theme, so we could potentially follow their lead again. Thoughts on this? Regarding specific number goals: I think 40 GA nominations was/is feasible for 2019, but it's certainly been effort intensive. Rather than extending 40 to 50 next year, I prefer the idea of keeping a 40 GA nominations goal (20 themed and 20 general) but adding some different types of goals alongside it. A GAN review goal might be a possibility -- it would be great to help reduce the GAN backlog, but I think we would have to first ensure that WiG members knew how to properly review articles (I've never done a GA review myself, and I would hate to see editors run into trouble via an improper review). Another idea: Featured Article Nominations. I notice that at least 3 WiG members successfully brought articles up to FA status this year, which is pretty neat. Maybe we could aim for 5 FA nominations for 2020? Lastly, our "Hot 100" list seems to be taking a very long time to get through, and I'm thinking it might be worth aiming to nominate a set number of these articles for GA status in 2020. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Pinging a few other WiG members: @Knope7: @Vanamonde93: @Trillfendi: @Ritchie333: -Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I've had no internet access for several days. I have one more suffrage article I can nominate, but I was hoping to get more photos. Still working on it, but if someone doesn't nominate the last article to meet our goal, I'll nominate Women's suffrage in India with the photos I have. I think 40 is a good goal and attainable, not sure about 50. I am not comfortable reviewing, done it once, felt very unsure about the whole process. Not my thing. I am not good at it. If I'm honest, I can say I probably won't do a lot of work on sports figures (about which I know nothing) or Hot 100, as the whole "vital article" selection process isn't based upon anything tangible (I asked, there is no criteria, other than agreement by the regular workers on that project). I'll more than likely work on dead activists, politicians, and scientists, like I usually do and if they can fit into a themed topic I'll add them. SusunW (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in sports figures either, but Sportsfan77777 nominated 6 tennis players this year and got 8 up to GA status the year before, and there are at least a couple more of our members who also claim affiliation with a sports-related wikiproject on their userpage, so possibly there would be interest there...
Re. FA noms: there were in fact at least four this year: along with the three on our goal tracking page, I brought Brothers Poem (coming soon to a main page near you...) to FA. I think the danger with an FA target is that the FA nomination process is very intimidating. I believe that anyone can, with a moderate amount of work, write a GA on a topic they are interested in; an FA is a much harder proposition. But if we do make that a target, then I have another Sappho poem in mind for my second go around.
Finally – if GA reviewing isn't your thing, Susun, I wouldn't worry about it: the way I see it, you are more than pulling your weight here! For others who might be interested in reviewing good article noms: WP:RGA gives some hints, queries at WT:GAN generally get a response, and you can always drop me a note on my talkpage if you have questions... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
If we decide to have FA targets, I think it would be worth emphasizing a team approach -- maybe interested editors could propose an article on our targets page, and we could aim to have at least 2 other editors sign on to work with them. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I have concerns about encouraging us to review each other's nominations. I worry what would happen if an outside editor thinks one WIG member was too lenient in the review of the work of another and decides to make a fuss about it. I think a lot of my concern comes from seeing how some editors accuse anyone trying to save articles on women from deletion of being too lenient or trying to create lower standards for notability for women. We may be able to create rules that would guard against such criticism and maybe other projects with very active reviewers have helpful policies in place. I want to be careful that we don't create the appearance of a conflict of interest. As for 2020, we may want to get a few of our suffrage articles together to see if we can have the DYK section of the main page dedicated suffrage on August 18, the 100th anniversary of ratification of the 19th amendment in the US. For a year long goal, I like the idea of having a sports category and a miscellaneous category again. I think the Olympics will provide a good boost in interest on sports related articles. There has also been a lot of great work done on women in sports. We could hopefully use that theme to attract more editors to our cause. Knope7 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Knope7 I am sorry, have been mostly offline working on real world project since the first of December. Love this idea "DYK section of the main page dedicated suffrage on August 18, the 100th anniversary of ratification of the 19th amendment in the US", the only issue is that most of the women I worked on were not US suffragists, but instead international. Though, it does show it was a worldwide issue and including them might be educational. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinions on article

Hi there, I've been thinking about joining this when I found out it was separate to WiR, where I contribute. I wrote an article a while back, Rafaela Requesens, which I think has effectively complete coverage. I've written one bio that's been promoted to GA before, but on an historical person (Manuel Trujillo Durán), with restrictions on detail in sources somewhat tightening the scope. I have done reviews for GA for bios, and I think this one is up to it. Still, because Requesens is a current figure, I would like some advice from the editors here, who have perhaps more experience with bios at GA, if you think it would be a smart move or not. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

An interesting article, but my initial impression is that it is not quite up to GA level yet (with the caveat that Latin American politics are very much not my area, and I don't typically work on BLPs). Some issues that I would expect you would find brought up at GA (with reference to the relevant criteria):
  • 1a: prose is mostly fine, though I spotted a few infelicities. There is at least one place where I see over-literal translation of Spanish into unidiomatic English ("In the broadcast, she was seen to debate with the Minister of Communication, Ernesto Villegas": I would expect "... she was seen debating with ..."); there are also some non sequiturs (why is her favourite baseball team where it is? Why are the student numbers at UCV tacked on to the end of a paragraph with little apparent relevance?)
  • There are also a few places where the narrative isn't quite clear – the section on early life, for instance, seems to jump around chronologically .
  • 1b: The lead is only one paragraph long – while it technically is within bounds of MOS:LEADLENGTH, the article is long enough that I would expect a 2-paragraph lead.
  • 2: Sourcing mostly looks fine, but I am dubious about Poderopedia. My Spanish is fairly limited, but it looks to me like their about page says that they are user-contributed, which would usually mean they are not a reliable source. And the link to Panorama Venezuela is broken. I haven't done any spotchecks.
  • Images look fine from a cursory glance; I'm not worried about neutrality or stability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a fine article and could certainly be a GA in the future, but it's still needs a bit of work before being taken to WP:GAN. A few comments (sorry if I'm not super-clear, it's very late here). I feel like it could do with a decent copyedit. It has a lot of issues with broad, casual paraphrasing of things she's said that need to be tightened up: e.g. " Still, she has said that he was not her main reason for entering politics." There's also some issues with concluding things in Wikipedia voice, e.g. "Later in the day she spoke about regret and pressure as a leader, using language evocative of war" that then cites a quote I wouldn't call evocative of war. Some of the language is unclear, e.g. "Representing the students of UCV, Requesens has taken some strong stances, including on national and international scales. In May 2018, during the process of the presidential election, she announced that the University would be among the bodies that did not officially recognise the election or its results as legitimate" - I'm not sure what this actually means (is she reporting something that's happened? if so, what's the strong stance?); or "The elections were contentious, but externally". There's some stuff that's just assumes the reader is already familiar: "When criticised for these, she has reminded people that there are politicians who are visibly tattooed, like Miguel Pizarro in Venezuela" (discussing the response to something without explaining the thing she's responding to is confusing - who is criticising her and why?). The same paragraph then has "Her favorite baseball team is Caribes de Anzoátegui", which just seems like a random unrelated addition. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks guys - yeah, this hasn't had a copyedit in a while, and addressing these comments is something to start with! Kingsif (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft page for 2020 goals

Hi everyone,

Happy New Year! And thank you to Ryan (Wiki Ed) and Elysia (Wiki Ed), who have just added the finishing GA nomination to our women's suffrage goal for 2019. :-)

I've created this draft page for Women in Green's 2020 goals based on our discussions above. We can change, add, or delete, over the next week or two before we make it live. A few notes: (1) I know not everyone is keen on sports, but I think it's as good a topic as any (and it's definitely a topic of interest for some members!). (2) I've added a wildcard category again for our second GA goal. (3) I've tentatively added a third goal of 5 FA nominations, plus some guidelines -- please let me know what you think. I know FA nominations are tough, but they're a good way to get articles about women featured visibly on the main page. (4) I haven't included a Hot 100 goal, since I'm not sensing much interest in that direction. (5) I've also held off on adding a GAN review goal, since I feel like we're more split, opinion-wise. We can still discuss it further if anyone feels strongly. Is there another way we could encourage members to review GAN articles without having an explicit quota? If there's any concern about accusations of bias or poor review standards, maybe we could reach out directly to the GAN editors and propose a partnership of some kind? I know they're always looking for ways to decrease the backlog, so I honestly think they would be happy to see new editors taking on reviews. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I like this approach! I'm not too concerned about possible backlash against reviewing each other's nominations because most projects already have members review each other's nominations. If you are an expert on something (and you have written GAs yourself), that makes you one of the most qualified people to conduct a review. (As an example, I only write sports articles and I only review sports articles.) If you haven't done any reviews before, I would recommend starting with a topic you are already somewhat familiar with. (For instance, if you have written a GA on a suffragist, you should be qualified to review another GAN on a different suffragist. You would already have some idea of what the structure and content should look like based on your own articles.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, Alanna! I agree on GA reviewing – I think the GA people will be quite happy to have more reviewers, especially from the ranks of people who have written GAs themselves and thus have an idea of what the standard is, and there's no real danger of there being a backlash against our encouraging it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for drafting this, Alanna the Brave! Since we had 20 suffragists and 24 wildcard articles in 2019, I would suggest our goal for wildcard next year should be at least 25. I also wonder if maybe we should lower the women in sports goal slightly and maybe add a second topic of focus. Perhaps we could let Ipigott and SusunW choose as they were the biggest contributors to our Suffragist goal? I'm also fine with leaving the goals as is. Knope7 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Alrighty -- thanks for the feedback, all! Knope7, I'm feeling a little reluctant to lower the themed women-in-sports goal or add a different themed goal, since the point of having that single themed goal is to make a strong, targeted impact in a specific area. We might be okay to increase the wildcard goal to 25, however. We attracted lots of new members in 2019, and I expect we'll attract more in 2020, which means we might we able to handle a slightly higher GA nomination goal. Pinging @SusunW and Ipigott: for more feedback on goals, as per Knope7's suggestions. Lastly, we've definitely got some strong support for the creation of GAN review goals (@Sportsfan77777 and Caeciliusinhorto:), so maybe we should test that out with the following ground rules: (1) editors should have already gone through the GA process as a nominator at least once before taking on a review, (2) first-time reviewers should consider finding a mentor, (3) editors should review articles on topics they are familiar with, and (4) editors are NOT expected to pass GAN articles in order to contribute to WiG goals. Both passed and failed articles may be added to the GAN review goal list after a review has formally concluded. How does everyone feel about this? Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely think that if there is to be a GA reviewing goal, it should be based on reviews completed rather than passed: doing a proper review is the same amount of work regardless of whether the article passes or fails, and we do not want there to be an incentive to pass inadequate nominations. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, I have been mostly offline since the first of December working on a project. Sorry to be late in responding. I am truly fine with whatever goals y'all want to set. I will participate in whatever categories I can and those that I cannot, well, I won't . I am hoping this will be a productive year and am looking forward to getting back to editing. SusunW (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would be good goals, as I generally only pick up a handful of women-oriented GAs a year, when I've got enough source material and knowledge on the topic. I'd personally like to go for core articles - ones that get a million plus views. The editing activity has died down on Aretha Franklin enough now that I could probably sit down and work through the book sources I have acquired to get it into shape for a GA, and as far as I can tell, it pulled 1.8 million views in the past year. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Update: We've had lots of good suggestions and discussion. In the interests of getting us moving, I've just moved our 2020 Goals page into the mainspace -- we can still implement any final edits/adjustments as necessary, but I think it's looking pretty good at this point. Changes: (1) I've added a GAN review goal (I wasn't sure about the best target number, so I just put "10 articles"). (2) For both GA nomination goals, I've added that we aim to cover women from every continent, since I think it's important to aim for a broad geographical range of women. Ritchie333, Aretha Franklin would be an awesome project for 2020, and you can list it as a "wildcard" contribution whenever you're ready. ;-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie: I certainly agree with you that it is important to work on core articles that get over a million page views as I have also become interested in this aspect. Nevertheless, I thought I should let you know that by far the majority of women among the 5000 most popular pages in 2019 are living actresses, models or TV presenters, mostly American (although there are also quite a few Brits). The American stars are also the articles which get the highest ORES ratings (for the top 3000, nearly all are given GA or FA). Most of those who are not in these categories are also English speakers. (I must say I was really surprised to see how few women in sports were included as I always thought sport was one of the Wikipedia favourites.) Quite a few of us think is important to cover women from the rest of the world, as well as perhaps a few English-speakers who represent other interests. I was wondering if you could have a quick look through the list and perhaps pick out up to 10 women deserving GA articles, if possible from various backgrounds. We could then look at these in more detail and decide whether there are any we should try to promote to GA.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia's most significant women

In connection with the discussion on "Vital articles" on the Women in Red talk page, I was wondering whether there was any interest from Women in Green contributors in compiling a list of the 50 most significant women with biographies on Wikipedia. At present, women are poorly represented in the vital articles. The ultimate goal would be to create a balanced list of the 100 most significant people on Wikipedia consisting of 50 women and 50 men. In compiling the list, we would no doubt also identify a number of important women whose biographies have not yet reached GA or higher. Anyone interested?--Ipigott (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical about the feasibility of choosing 50 "most significant women", but it might be an interesting exercise, and I would love to see a "top 100" list that is actually gender balanced. I'm open to contributing. I think we would have to answer some questions together first: what do we mean by "significant"? Are we sticking to historical figures, or also including contemporary figures? How would we ensure a broad range of races, nationalities and occupations are included? Would the 50 men be chosen using the same criteria? Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
That's my concern too. Without criteria, its just a list based on popularity and limited by the world view and biases we all hold for those most known "to us". If there were a source(s) that looked with a wide lens at women's contributions over time and their impact, on a global scale, we'd have a foundation, but to my knowledge, there is no such source(s). SusunW (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reactions. I included selection criteria as one of the items we need to work on. The selection of "vital articles" has been based on this: "A vital article is one considered essential to the subjects listed. For example, it would be difficult to discuss Science without the scientific method, History without World War II, Language without Grammar, Earth science without Geology, or Civics without Democracy. Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field, such as Albert Einstein in "Inventors and scientists" or William Shakespeare in "Authors". In sections such as those pertaining to People, History or Geography, weight is given to some articles to produce a more diverse, global list." While this seems a reasonable approach, the outcome is that the vast majority of people listed are men. In my opinion, we need to come up with a slightly new approach in our selection of women. One area deserving attention seems to be "Activists" (which would not apply in the same way to men). Under "Leadership", I think we could give special attention to women who have not only been generally successful but to those who have influenced developments thanks to their own appreciation of priorities. Another aspect to be taken into consideration is the number of "page views" the biographies have on Wikipedia (although an initial analysis has indicated by far the majority of frequently viewed women's biographies are those of actresses and models with surprisingly few even from sports). Then there are historical figures such as Cleopatra, Joan of Arc and Queen Victoria who seem to be included in most lists of significant women. I think we also need to consider their geographical and ethnic origins so that they are not all British or American. But I am completely open to all other suggestions on how to select the most significant women. And despite what Susun says, there are a number of books on the most significant women in history, although we might not agree with their findings.--Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd mainly just caution about making sure to get geographical balance: all the previous attempts I've seen inevitably go to American pop culture figures long before they'd think of extremely significant Asian/African/Latin American leaders, and it's even worse in other areas. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
What does it tell you that Rihanna isn’t even in the Hot 100 list in this very group.... The article gets 4 to 6 million views a year. ⌚️ (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't tell you very much at all. Firstly, the Hot 100 isn't purely done on page views, because that would lead to a very dull list: virtually all living, English speaking celebrities. Secondly, even if it were done by page views, Rihanna's not quite as foregone a conclusion as you might think: by my count, looking at the popular pages reports for Wikiprojects Women, Women's History, Women's Sport, Women Artists, and Women Writers, and excluding all of the pages except biographies of real women, Rihanna is the 95th most popular B-class or below article, based on last month's page views. If we were to include all of the pages under the scope of those projects, not just biographies (and added in the couple of extra pages that Women's Health then gives us), Rihanna wouldn't be in the Hot 100 at all.
How could someone who is not only as successful as Rihanna has been in her only 15 year career, who attracts so many people to this website to read her biography that it equates to the population of Canada since the page view tracker started, not be considered one of the so-called 100 most important women to get to a minimum of Good Article calibre? Such metric just doesn’t make sense. Granted she’s basically been on hiatus since 2016 and still, 30,000 people a day come to her article expecting a higher level of quality for someone of her fame, even if they don’t know what a Good Article is. ⌚️ (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course, such a list would leave us well-supplied with actresses, musicians, and British royals alive in the last 50 years, while omitting Jane Austen, all the Bronte sisters, Boudica, Hatshepsut, and Rosa Parks, to take some examples at random from the current list. Whether that produces a better list of topics which wikipedia "should" have good articles on is of course subjective, but I would suggest that it doesn't. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
For such reason, it should be split into different periods of history. ⌚️ (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
And of course, the problem with keeping them at GA status is much more difficult with living people, as their information is ever changing, attracting lots of drive-by editing. Not saying that is a bad thing, but it does make it far more difficult to keep up the quality of living peoples' articles. SusunW (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Women's Franchise Act

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but I started this article and it's on a topic that is really important: it's about granting female citizens of Canada the right to vote in federal elections. I was kind of in disbelief that there wasn't already an article about this when I started it. Anyways, I have every intention to research and improve this article, but there's a lot that I could cover and it's kind of overwhelming to think about. I'm scared I'm going to overlook something important or just do a not-so-great job on such an important article. Help from others would be appreciated. Clovermoss (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the sources are contradictory. Several say full voting rights, but that does not appear to be true. The 1918 law was restricted, i.e. granted to women 21 or more, who were native-born, were not in a racially restricted group (indigenous, Asian, etc.) and met property requirements established by their provinces, if extant; it also did not allow women to stand in elections (meaning those that say it brought equality to men's and women's voting rights appear to be wrong).[3][4] You might want to mention the restrictions and amendments that followed to correct these issues Clovermoss. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: Thank you for the links, they're very helpful! I have to go to bed soon, and I have study for my upcoming exams, but I might be able to squeeze in some time to edit. The stuff you mentioned is really important so I'll try to update it asap. I'm also confused about why sources are contradictory - there's a huge difference between "all" and not all. Clovermoss (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) fixed ping Clovermoss (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Listing Women in Green as a wikiproject

I just happened to notice that Women in Green is not included on the list of most active wikiprojects. I've now created Category:WikiProject Women in Green which may rectify the situation. I've also brought it to the attention of WP Council.--Ipigott (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

At present, Women in Green is a subproject of WP Women. Given current interest in the project, it seems to me as if it would be useful to make it a wikiproject in its own right. I would be interested to hear what others think about this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Would anything actually change for WIG if it were a wikiproject in its own right rather than a taskforce of WP:WOMEN? It doesn't really matter to me if this is classified as a task force or a wikiproject unless there is some tangible difference between the two and it would be in some way useful for us to change our status. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ipigott I wrote a response on the WikiProject Council page, where I was pinged, asking the same thing, Caeciliusinhorto-public. But, of course, an edit conflict lost my entire reply and I haven't had enough coffee to even attempt to recreate it. SusunW (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto-public: I think several things would change for the better if WiG were to be a wikiproject in its own right. First of all, people would be able to find it more easily. Over the past few months several editors working on the improvement of women's biographies have expressed surprise when I have told them the project exists. People simply don't know about it. Second, the project would receive direct attention from interested parties such as WikiProject Council rather than just as a subproject of WikiProject Women. Third, while WP Women used to be a highly active project, now that its former coordinator Dr. Blofeld is now semi-retired views have dropped to a daily average of just 4 on its talk page and only 15 on its main page. By contrast, Women in Red which now has full wikiproject status has an average of 140 on its talk page and over 2,000 on its main page. I believe WiG's current 13 talk page views per day and 4 main page views would rapidly increase if it were a fully fledged wikiproject. If so, articles could be tagged with appropriate WiR templates. And last but not least, I think it is important that people should know that there is a wikiproject specifically devoted to improving the quality of women's biographies and articles about women.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
If you think it will give us more exposure Ipigott, I totally agree we should do that. SusunW (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not entirely convinced that Women in Green needs to become an independent WikiProject. A few thoughts: (1) Why would becoming a fully-fledged WikiProject increase our page views or activity? I know of several formal WikiProjects that have faded and become inactive, despite having official WikiProject status, so success seems to be more reliant on having a strong team of coordinators/members than having project status. (2) It's not clear to me what benefits WikiProject Council might provide (I had never heard of them before now), and from the discussion on the WP Council talk page, it's also not clear to me that WP Council is a stable initiative yet. Members appear to be alarmed by many of the sudden, rapid changes made by editor Sm8900 this week. (3) If we want to increase Women in Green's visibility, I think there are additional/alternative ways to do this, even as a sub-project -- for example, creating a standard WiG tag/template ("This article was edited by members of Women in Green, WikiProject Women's article improvement department"). We could also try organizing events/contests or partnering with other WikiProjects to attract new members from different areas. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
On the subject of templates, I have quickly thrown together a possible template here. I don't speak WP templatese fluently, so it's very basic – just shows the banner and puts the page in (the currently non-existent) Category:Women in Green articles. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC) [I am sure it's clear to everyone, but just to explicitly note that it's in my userspace: if people want to make use of it, it should be moved somewhere like Template:Women in Green Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Caeciliusinhorto! That's definitely the kind of template I was imagining, although maybe we could expand the text a little more, similar to something the Guild of Copy Editors uses. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Expanded slightly. Feel free to tweak it as you like – I don't have any particular attachment to the wording. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Wp Women was always an umbrella project really, just to tie things together. I just think of Women in Green as a side project to Women in Red, but I'm happy with whatever you decide.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Alanna the Brave, you make some valid points. Nevertheless, I think making it a proper wikiproject would help with all the things you mention -- a template would be more in line with a full project (otherwise strictly speaking we should continue to use the WP Women template with add ons), it would encourage more active participation (as people would see the WP WiG tags), and we could of course organize mailings to sensitize other wikiprojects and encourage quality-conscious editors to join and participate. But it's entirely up to you and I admit that WP Council is experiencing a bit of confusion at the moment. That's something I am working on too.--Ipigott (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Well, I may not be certain it's necessary for Women in Green to become a full WikiProject, but I don't have any serious objections to it (I can't see problems arising). And your enthusiasm is contagious! If you would like to go ahead and make this happen, I'm okay with it. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Alanna the Brave: OK, I'll see what I can do.--Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Need for support

I've looked into this a bit more closely and find from here that a wikiproject proposal needs to be supported by at least six participants. We therefore need at least four more, ideally perhaps as many as eight. Before I proceed further, it looks at if it might be worthwhile to see how many of our participants and page watchers think it is a good idea to move from a task force of WP Women to a full wikiproject and would therefore be prepared to back a formal proposal. It would be useful to receive initial responses here. Maybe Alanna the Brave, if we don't have suitable responses here within two or three days, we should contact some of our more active participants on their talk pages. Some might simply feel that we should just continue as a task force rather than a full wikiproject. Let's see how it goes.--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I supported the idea above, not sure what else I need to do to clarify that. SusunW (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
SusunW: Thanks. You don't really need to do anything more unless you would like to encourage others to give their support.--Ipigott (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I support. Ping me if you need something more than that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Up to now, there only seem to be four of us interested in moving to full WikiProject status. Unless there is more interest, I think it is probably better to keep things as they are.--Ipigott (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Ipigott, it seems a pity to drop the idea after all that discussion. I think we may find enough support for making Women in Green a full WikiProject, but we'll need to reach out to editors directly to ask their opinion, as they may not have seen the proposal. Dr. Blofeld stated earlier that he would support whatever decision we came to, which would give us 5 supporters. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Pinging other Women in Green members for comment on the proposal: @AlastairJHannaford, Auldhouse, Blackknight12, Caeciliusinhorto, ClarityKTMpls, The Drover's Wife, Knope7, LovelyLillith, Lyrelyrebird, Miyagawa, MPJ-DK, MWright96, Nanobright, Originalmess, PMCH2, Ptinphusmia, Ritchie333, Ruby2010, Scwalsh, ScoutHarris, SunnyBoi, TachibanaLouis, Trillfendi, Tulada, Valereee, Vanamonde93, and Michael Goodyear:
I am so new to this level of involvement, I hadn't realized it wasn't yet a full wikiproject! I support the proposal to make that change.ClarityKTMpls (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Support the proposal to convert this to a full WikiProject MWright96 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
It makes sense to me. I've been following this discussion, just didn't share my opinion because I rarely have the energy for WP:GA-length work. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I support it. ScoutHarris (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (responding to ping) I'm quite indifferent as to our formal classification. The group does good work. I don't see this work being affected by whether it's a project or a task force. If it's something the core members are in favor of, I guess you could put me down as a "don't-see-why-not support". Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (responding to ping) Support: I think the project needs more visibility, and I would agree with earlier comment that I suspect many people who could be useful do not know it exists. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
for me, I found this project via the user box for it, but I can't recall if I already started making women green at that time. ⌚️ (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
This looks good. Let's give it another 24 hours and see if there is further support. Then I'll go ahead with an official application.--Ipigott (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Do we need an official application? The WikiProject Council is deader than the dodo. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Success

Thank you all for your support. Women in Green is now a wikiproject in its own right. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Women_in_Green#Discussions.--Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Time to move the page? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The Drover's Wife: Does it need to be moved? It seems to me to be presented correctly at the moment. But if you are aware of any additional requirements, please advise.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The Drover's Wife and Ipigott: I've just moved the project page from "Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green" to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green", to reflect that it's no longer a sub-page of WP Women. The old page name should now be a redirect to the new one. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've also just updated the namespace information for our talk page archive bot. I've never done this before, so if anyone would like to double-check that I've done it correctly... please do. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this. I had not noticed the obvious need for a page move, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Wonderful! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to see the upgrade seems to have attracted at least one new participant, Ninafundisha, who is interested in architecture and East Africa.--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding earlier, but I am glad this is a success and that it has become its own WikiProject! Lyrelyrebird (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
That's a milestone in this project. Congratulations should be in order.But I'll like to use this opportunity to solicit for the community's support in gaining the skills and knowledge necessary to be active here and other Wikipedia community. I'm just a new volunteer who is yet to acquire the needed skills here. Though, I'm almost one year old but I started being active just on November, 2019. So technically, that makes me a new volunteer. Ptinphusmia (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ptinphusmia: you've certainly got our support! :-) If you ever have specific questions or GA projects you need advice on, feel free to reach out and/or create a new talk page post. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Alanna the brave: Thank you in for the offered support! :-) Based on the theme for the year you mentioned, women in sports...how do I access the articles that needs improvement? Please guide me in this. Ptinphusmia (talk) 19:30 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of women's sports

In keeping with our theme of women in sports this year, I thought I would bring your attention to the Timeline of women's sports. Improvements could include adding new entries (hopefully creating a more global timeline), finding citations for un-sourced entries, fixing plagiarism issues (many entries seem to be copied from a "History of Women in Sports Timeline" website), and eventually adding some relevant photos/images of women in sports. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Which reminds me, neither Venus or Serena have good articles. Yikes. ⌚️ (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Nor has Caroline Wozniacki who has just retired. Her biography looks pretty good but needs a few more inline refs, particularly at the end of paragraphs. There's lots of recent commentary if more is needed but the article already runs to over 150 kB.
And how about Chris Evert (needs a lot of work), Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Billy Jean King, etc, etc. As far as I can see, not one single female tennis player has a GA biography. Cf Roger Federer GA.--Ipigott (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Wozniacki retired? Oof! Yes we have a lot of catching up to do. I’ve only made one edit to Billie Jean King to remove an irrelevancy. ⌚️ (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Just seen that Kim Clijsters is FA.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Just as a note: Sportsfan77777 has been busy improving articles about women tennis players for at least a couple of years, and if you're interested you can see those GA/FA nominations on our 2018 & 2019 goal pages. Kim Clijsters is one of those articles. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Alanna the Brave! There is a full list of the women's tennis GAs/FAs here. There are similar lists under the task forces for other sports as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777: I can see you've been doing a really good job there and that you yourself have contributed to lots of GAs and GA reviews. Maybe we should get together on improving Venus Williams for GA. It looks as if it needs quite a bit of tidying up. I see it is currently only rated B 4.14 by Ores. I've never really worked on a tennis biography but I'll try to help out, especially as Women in Red has a focus on black women this month.--Ipigott (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian, if you want to start working on tennis articles, I'd recommend starting with a younger active player (so there is less to write about) like I did, and then work your way up to someone more important (if that's what you really want). I haven't worked on either of the Williams sisters because they would take forever to write up (Venus has played 24 years on tour now?! That's as many as the first five active players I got to GA combined.), probably a few months. Aside from the Williams sisters, the other top black WTA players are all GAs (Naomi Osaka, Madison Keys, and Sloane Stephens) and I've kept Coco Gauff in good shape as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

New article - Valerie Rodway

I am currently writing an article about Guyanese composer Valerie Rodway, but I am not understanding where I should post it as I work on it... and hopefully get it far along enough to nominate as a GA article.

Sorry, I am just not understanding the groupings.

Where should I post it? Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson If you need help, here is where it goes. Once it is nominated, list it on the Goal Tracking tab. We don't set our goals based on when they are approved, because that could be several months. So when you have nominated it, just list it there. Once it's approved, change the GAN template to a GA template. Hope that makes sense, but if not, let me know. SusunW (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
When you say, post it here, SusunW do you mean this page? Once it is a GAN (not quite there yet). For some reason, I thought I saw a list for people working to get an article ready to nominate, but I don't remember where... or, maybe I am remembering wrong. Thanks so much.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
CaroleHenson At the top of the main page are four tabs. Homepage lists members, nominations awaiting review, and recent successes. Bulletin Board lists specific help needs on specific articles. Goal Tracking lists our annual goals, pending nominations, reviews, etc. Talk lands you here, where you can discuss anything about the project, look for collaborators, etc. Often we check our pulse and people post what they are working on to reach our goals for the year, but I don't think I've seen one of those since the new year. SusunW (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am so stumped about this. I don't know why. Thanks once again for your patience. It sounds like I should wait until it is GA ready, which will likely be soon.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey CaroleHenson no problem. Sorry to be slow to respond, I was off more than on yesterday. Our goal is to help people successfully improve the quality of articles, so any question is welcome and I'm glad to try to help anytime. SusunW (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that is so nice of you! I nominated it for GA and posted it yesterday.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting support

Hello,

Requesting to add women's rights issue article Aurat March to your 'watch list' during week of International Women's Day .

While I am steadily working on article to improve further as suggested in notification template. Article is coming across repeat anon vandalism of intentional misogynistic hate against women's movement plus some un-sourced original research attacks.

It seems to be , being women's day around I worry this vandalism may get repeated.

Please see if you can add article Aurat March to your 'watch list' at least until 12/15 March so any repetition of intentional vandalism can be duly reversed.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Time magazine's women candidates for GA

In connection with a Women in Red posting on Time's 100 Women of the Year for 100 Years it occurred to me that this might serve as a checklist of biographies which deserve to be improved up to GA class or beyond. Taking those from the 1920s and 1930s, we could start with the suffragists Carrie Chapman Catt (B class, ORES B 4.32), Alice Paul (B class, ORES FA 5.54) and Lucy Burns (B class, ORES FA 5.07). Perhaps also the fashion designer Coco Chanel (B class, ORES FA 5.34), the choreographer Martha Graham (C class, ORES C 3.64) and the educator Maria Montessori (B class, ORES GA 4.42). As we're dealing with aviators on WiR this month, how about Amelia Earhart (B class, ORES B 4.59) and for A+F the Mexican painter Frida Kahlo (B class, ORES 5.66). I see Emmy Noether and Anna May Wong are already FA. As you can see from the ORES ratings, some of them are already very close to the mark. Anyone interested?--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

(:Oh wait, I'm mistaken, Greta became GA last month) I think Frida Kahlo is a requirement, as she's on the Hot 100, as is Coco Chanel. ⌚️ (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Article adoption request

Hi,

Marvi Sirmed is a feminist from Pakistan. If more people do not come forward it won't be a supersize that article Marvi Sirmed likely to get credit of most defamed & vandalized Pakistani feminist article on English Wikipedia.

So making this article adoption request to rescue & protect the same.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mary Dominis

Okay, so I bit the bullet and in spite of not really being comfortable with reviewing articles, I decided that I would try to do more this year to reach our goal. In that regard, I looked through the list and selected one of the oldest women's articles that hadn't been reviewed. Unfortunately, the nominator has hardly been on WP since I did the review 8 days ago. I totally understand real life being more important, but I don't want to fail the article just because of that. Is anyone willing to answer my points here Talk:Mary Dominis/GA1 so that the article can be promoted? SusunW (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

And while we are in Hawaii, May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, and DYK has set aside a special holding area for that, if anyone is working on articles in the Pacific that would qualify. SusunW (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK Constance Kies

This article passed its GAN today. Constance Kies was a nutrition scientist, dietitian, and feminist. She tragically died of uterine cancer at the age of 59. If anyone is interested, it could qualify for a DYK nomination (I am not great or experienced with those). Happy to help. TJMSmith (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I can do it and give you the proper credit to its expansion. ⌚️ (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: I appreciate it. Feel free to reach out if you had any questions about Kies. I'll note that her sister, Cosette Kies is an interesting character too, although there isn't much sourcing tying the two together. TJMSmith (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed mass deletion of top-division footballer / soccer player articles

An editor is nominating numerous articles about women footballers / soccer players who have played in top leagues in France and Sweden. The leagues most likely were included on WP:NFOOTY unbalanced list of notable leagues at the time of creation - and have since been removed but that's probably irrelevant here. Basically, many of the articles need improved referencing to meet WP:GNG.

Please see centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Proposed deletion of women's footballer / soccer player articles.

If you're able to help update the articles to ensure WP:GNG met, even better.

Hmlarson (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a bot to pull in the GAs and the FLs that are appropriately tagged, but not one for Featured Lists? I have one at CMLL World Women's Championship which is a featured list. Also, what about Featured Topics and Good Topics? This should be something the bot can pull in right? Just curious. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like something we could potentially adapt the bot for, but I don't know much about bots. @Sportsfan77777: any thoughts on this? Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Alanna the Brave, I added FLs to the tracked content. It will be included the next time the bot updates the list (two weeks at most). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Sportsfan77777! Much appreciated. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
MPJ-DK, do you want to add your two recent GAs (Irma González and the Mexican National Women's Tag Team Championship) to the Goal Tracking list? Also, you need to include the WikiProject Women's Sport banner on the talk page of the first one for the bot to add it to the overall list. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, I figured we'd want to be sure to feature all the excellent content out there. And yes I do, thank you for the reminder

Requesting support on article

Hi requesting help on Regine Olsen article particularly reframing and refocusing towards Olsen

Yeah that definitely needs work, I will see what I can do to help. That was my similar agenda for Heidi Cruz. I’m sure Ms. Olsen had a fascinating life of her own besides a relationship with a famous philosopher. ⌚️ (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, I came here to post about something else but I regretfully failed that article yesterday (and mentioned here might be a good place to get help). The review is at Talk:Regine_Olsen/GA1 - I would say it needs some work and some copyvio checking but I think it could be a GA in due course. Mujinga (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mary Beth Edelson

Hi I am currently reviewing Mary Beth Edelson for GA status. It needs a bit of work but I think its on track. The nominator has already made some excellent edits but I said I could ask here for advice on a couple of specific points, namely:

  • If there are any picture whizzes it would be great to have a picture of her (it's not necessary but would be good)
  • Edelson has changed her name twice through marriage during her career and had a slightly different birth name so it's good to check if the article is dealing with that correctly
  • Lastly, the structure needed some work and it's better now, but is there an artist bio template which could be followed? I looked around but didn't see one.

Thanks for any help! Mujinga (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I made a comment here about the use of her name.
I am happy to find and load an image of Edelson if someone could let me know if there's a way to do that under fair use rationale for a person who is still living - or has an example I could refer to.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for picking up women's articles to review Mujinga! 1) I don't think there is any way, short of e-mailing her and asking her to release a photograph for affixing one to the article, unless there is already one with the correct commons licensing on line. There isn't a fair use rationale for living people. 2) My personal preference is to use the name the person was using at the time they used it, but many, many wp editors use the notable name throughout the article as is done here. My rationale for the way I do it is that other people looking for records at the time she was, say Johnson, would only find her under that name. Other editors' rationale is that name changes can cause confusion. As long as all the names used (as long as it is not a dead name) are given in the article and sourced, and it is clear that they are all the same person, I think you are fine. 3) no idea. P. S. Nice article, CaroleHenson. SusunW (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, SusunW, thanks! I ran across another of your articles in the last couple of days. I really appreciate your work!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and edits, that all helped to get Mary Beth Edelson to GA. Nice one to CaroleHenson as nominator and creator. Mujinga (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting support from Portuguese speakers: Adalgisa Nery

This article was unreferenced. I have been able to add one reference and there seems to be quite a bit of coverage in Portuguese if anyone is able to help with that. Tacyarg (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hiya Tacyarg, I found it funny that the page had a peer review in 2005 and no-one asked for sources!? Sorry I can't help with Portuguese and you'd prob get more responses over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, but I put a few EN sources I found on Talk:Adalgisa Nery Mujinga (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

April Check-In

Hello all -- how are you doing? What are you working on? These are strange and unsettling times, regardless of where you live on the planet earth, but I thought we could check in with each other this week. We're doing impressively well with our 2020 goals: we've achieved 8/20 GA nominations about women in sports, 12/25 wildcard GA nominations, 6/10 GA nomination reviews, and 2/5 FA nominations in progress... and we're only three months into the year!

I haven't done much editing over the past few weeks (busy wrestling with stress), but I'm hoping to gradually settle into some new projects. I'd like to work on Junko Tabei (a mountain climber), and possibly Nellie Bly (a journalist from the Hot 100 list). I've also decided that I'd like to bring Frances Gertrude McGill up to FA status this year; I've requested a peer review for that article, so if any of you have suggestions for improvement, I'd much appreciate it. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been quite busy and fortunately have had several reviewers pick up articles. Though I find reviewing extremely stressful, I have committed to trying to accomplish 1 per month. Am about to finalize Patsy Mink and hopefully it will be ready for Asian-Pacific American month in May. I don't know if project members are aware of this discussion, but it is worrisome for me. I have many articles that are outstanding for many months awaiting review. It would seem to indicate, if there is consensus on limits that writers may be restricted unless they can find people to do reviews for them. I don't like shifting the focus from quality production to schmoozing reviewers, but it looks like that may be where we are headed. SusunW (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: - I don't think I've seen any of you GA noms, but if I do, I'll review them for you. I'm taking part in the current backlog drive (plan A to get it manageable) and have a request page for GA reviews that have been stagnating :) I joined this project mostly as a reviewer, so it's nothing extra for me. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much Kingsif! Truly I appreciate it. My list was up to 12, but Encyclopædius and Gog the Mild whittled it down to Annie MacDonald Langstaff - 27 September 2019; Maria Grzegorzewska - 2 October 2019; Martha Watts - 2 October 2019; Alma Sundquist - 6 November 2019; Marie Lang - 11 November 2019; and Elisabeth Dieudonné Vincent - 22 February 2020 still awaiting review. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I have been working on Katherine Hughes (activist), which is currently undergoing a GA review. The main thing left to do is broadness, which I've been working on. By the way, I'm not a member of this wikiproject yet. Is it okay to join? Clovermoss (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@Clovermoss: absolutely! Just add your name to the participants list on our main page. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
What Alanna the Brave said. We need all the helpers we can get. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@Alanna the Brave: (ec) Thanks. I decided that I might as well go for it at around the same time you replied to me. My main hesistaton was whether or not I'd actually be able to write good articles, but I'm more confident that that's something I can accomplish. Question: are articles only part of the project once they've become a GA, or once someone is actively working towards that quality? Clovermoss (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Clovermoss, if I understand the question, once they are nominated. SusunW (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m working to renominate Karlie Kloss (who is now a controversial figure and incredibly is now dragged into this administration’s coronavirus regime. Strange times indeed). I had nominated her probably in 2018(?) but someone commented to me that they didn’t think the article’s C-Class rating shouldn’t be nominated. So lately I’ve been fine tuning around that one to hopefully get it reviewed before the end of the year. Other than that, one of my GANs is still waiting for review from last year (as of today, Gisele is now finally in the review process). (Gisele passed and as of April 22, Rihanna is in review. Same reviewer, coincidentally.). I think I can bring up two more this year (to nomination) if I have it in me. ⌚️ (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The GA drive has managed to clear all of our 2019 backlog in just 21 days. All the nominees in our goals for last year have now been approved :) I am really thankful for all the work reviewers have done in this really short period of time. Amazing! SusunW (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent success: from AFD to GA

I came across the article on Shelby Starner when it was nominated for deletion in 2018. I'm proud to say it is now GA status. I think it is a good example of WP:HEYMAN. Starner's life was cut tragically short by bulimia. Hopefully this article will be useful to future readers. TJMSmith (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That is excellent, TJMSmith. Congratulations! SusunW (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Very nice work! Penny Richards (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a conversation occurring here, Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Australian women categories, which may be of interest to some of you because of the possibility for broad ramifications, e.g. beyond just this one country. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Assessment drive

I'm wondering if you have plans for an article "assessment drive"? I haven't had the energy to create new women's biographies in the last several weeks, but instead, I have spent a lot of time assessing articles (women's biographies; women's works), and updating their talkpage templates if appropriate. I've also made minor edits (add Authority Control, headers, wikilinks; remove stub templates) to some of these articles if I felt so inclined. For the most part, I've focused on articles within the scope of WP:WikiProject Women writers as I'm the founder, but I've also attended to articles about women physicians. I've been using this as my guide regarding which articles need reviewing: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Women writers (other WikiProjects use the same template). Anyway, I'll keep chugging along with my reviews for now, but was curious if this WikiProject was planning a concerted effort along these lines later this year. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks for the suggestion! We've been kept busy with our 2020 goals (they're coming along nicely), but an assessment drive is certainly something we could consider if there is enough interest. Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a 2week Online Writing Contest: Closing Online Gender Gap

Hello friends,

We invite you to join us in a 2 week long WikiGap Online Writing contest starting today 29 April to 13 May.

Amazing prizes are available for participants.

The contest is organized in partnership with the Swedish Embassy in Nigeria, African Women in the Media, Women in Red, Wiki in Africa and Wikimedia Sverige

Kindly check the project landing page for more details

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGap_Nigeria_Online_Challenge/Participants

Stay Safe --Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

National Federation of Women Workers (UK) for GA

For those who might be interested: I completed a GAN review of the National Federation of Women Workers, it was relatively close to GA status but unfortunately the nominator was not able to complete the necessary changes. I closed the nomination as a fail in early April. However, I don't think there is a lot to do with the article, perhaps someone new can work on it and renominate? I would be happy to re-review. Ping me if someone chooses to do this. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia

Can somebody please give Wikipedia:Peer review/Dimple Kapadia/archive2 a review. I think it can be brought to FA status, it's a pretty high profile BLP. It really needs a few decent reviews from somoebody, Shshshsh has worked hard on it.† Encyclopædius 16:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

June check-in... and 50th new member!

Hey everyone -- how are things going for you this month? We're almost halfway through the year, and the 2020 Goals are progressing very well: we've submitted 17/20 sports GA nominations and 20/25 wildcard GA nominations, and we've blasted the nomination review goal out of the water (14/10). Two FA nominations have successfully passed. Oh, and Women in Green apparently just reached 50 members (welcome, all!). :-) What are your current projects? Any news? At the moment, I'm working on improving journalist Nellie Bly, and I also need to respond to some helpful peer review comments on forensic pathologist Frances Gertrude McGill. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nellie Bly seems to have led an interesting life! I have been happy to discover the now very easy to access Wikipedia Library Card Platform which has allowed me to research women in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography amongst other places. I have been working on Vesta Tilley and would hope to bring it to GA status eventually (right now it's 15k). Your post makes me realise I should add my GA reviews to that list! Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
That Library Card platform is great, isn't it? So many different research sources. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

How to record nationality on Wikidata?

I invite your feedback on a property proposal for nationality as a cultural identity over on Wikidata. The proposed property is meant to offer an alternative to "ethnic group" and to nationality as defined by citizenship. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. Qono (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Edmonia Lewis

Hello, apparently you are looking for articles like Edmonia Lewis to bring to good and featured status. This one seems rather close to that and relevant to your intentions. Thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 07:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Why participation of Muslim background women on Wikipedia as editors is too less?

Hi.

If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Why does editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia is too less?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green/Archive_3&oldid=1019587856"