Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Meetup/1

Alanna the Brave, I put the logo in the upper right had corner. If you prefer the regular WiG lady, please feel free to revert the edit. :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WomenArtistUpdates -- all looks good. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page template?

Alanna the Brave - should we have a specific template that can be placed on the talk pages of articles which are successfully promoted during this drive (as WIR does for each of their editathons)? Or we just stick with {{WIG}}? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: I was thinking about this last month -- right now, we have the very new and slightly generic WIG and WIG-1, but I'm thinking that the contents of WIG-1 should be moved over to WIG 2021, and then we could repurpose WIG-1 for our Meetup 1 event. Would that match up with what you're thinking? Vanamonde93‬ was just inquiring whether we could come up with an easier way to track editathon GA nominations for the purposes of reviewing, so this might help accomplish that. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: I think ideally every article worked on during the drive should have a template, whether successfully obtaining GA status or not. Potentially, this could help in future in comparing the effect of this drive with others. What might be the simplest way to deal with things is that we ask any editor to place a WiG-1 template on the talk page of any article they nominate (we can also check to see if any articles missing this later). At this point I'd don't think the numbers will be so great that we need anything further - after the drive we can manually go through and examine the "success" rate. So, yes, agree with you! :) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: I've been too busy this past week, but I may be able to get the template done over the next few days (definitely before end of event!). Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: Let me know if you've had a chance to work on this, otherwise I can draft something. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: I haven't managed it yet, so you're welcome to take a run at it. Thanks! Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

End of Week 1 - Check-in

Hi all! I see we've got our first two GA nominations submitted, plus some participants using the 20-minute article assessment option (which is great). What are you working on this week? Any questions or comments for the group? Feel free to let us know how you're doing. I'm wrestling with a busy schedule at the moment, but I've started some research to work on the Canadian Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some work on the Edith Margaret Garrud article. Probably Helena Deneke after that. Very happy to help out if I can - I'm a member of the British Library so if anyone is having problems getting hold of specific sources I may be able to assist. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna the Brave I said I'd do one and then I had to do 2 because Unity Dow's article was really poor for such an amazing woman. I'm back to working on nationality law, but I must say, working on women's articles is far more fun than legalese. Thanks for spearheading this initiative and getting my head out of it (well only sort of since both women had nationality woes) for at least a while. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't stand it when I ran across Miriam Soljak, another women with nationality woes and uncited, so...she's my 3rd. Now I really must get back to Madagascar. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: It's difficult to stop, isn't it? ;-P Thanks for the contributions! Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, Alanna the Brave, but when I think that I still have 1/2 of Africa, all of Europe, and all of Asia to go on the legal part, I freak out and know I need to get back to it. Maybe I reward myself with one woman each time I finish a continent? That way the bios will be ready when I do the overview on nationality laws. SusunW (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: That sounds like a good plan. Good to give your brain a break (and a treat) from time to time. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a little more occupied with RL necessities than I had planned and trying to complete an unrelated long-overdue GA review. However, did complete a mini-review and have done initial research and sourcing with the hope of getting the 2015 Munnar Plantation strike article to GA this month. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked quite a bit on the Corry Tendeloo article, although not as much as I liked because of finishing off the Manon Melis FAC took longer than anticipated. I'm confident though that I can get the Tendeloo article in a decent enough shape for GAN, after which I hope to review a GAN. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final Week - Check-in & Wrap-up

We're into the final week of the editathon! I've enjoyed hearing about everyone's projects, and I hope you've enjoyed working on them this month. A few notes: (1) If you would like to receive the editathon barnstar, you'll need to have submitted a GA nomination OR begun reviewing a nomination by the end of October 31 (Reviewers, we have at least 5 editathon nominations listed on the event main page that need reviews), (2) remember that both nominators and reviewers have the option to list articles under Women in Green's annual goals for 2021, and (3) if you don't think you'll make the barnstar deadline but would still like to take advantage of our October "20-minute article assessments," remember to put in your request soon! All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: This was my first GAR and so feedback may help. The article was quite long and accessing sources wasn't easy. And there was quite a lot of back and forth between myself and the main author. As other activity and commitments were distracting, the review took quite some time to complete, having started on 2 Oct and completed on 9 Nov. My original plan was to try doing a review first as a QPQ and then submit an article of my own. It's too late for another entry now but I'm pleased to find that the reviews can be completed up to the end of Nov and so this counts. Such pragmatic rules are a good way of avoiding frustration.

I've known about the GA process for some time but this event got me to actually get one done, so thanks for providing some motivation.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I'm glad you completed your first GA review. Congrats! That's definitely one of the things we wanted to encourage with this event. In terms of feedback, I can offer a few thoughts on your review:

You covered all the different areas for review -- I notice some helpful suggestions on image sizing, captions, sourcing, etc. It's totally normal to have that back-and-forth between the reviewer and nominator: explaining the rationale for different thoughts and decisions (on either side) is important for hashing out what needs to change and what doesn't.
I think you did a nice job of thoroughly reviewing the article's sources (always good). If you ever have trouble accessing sources, I recommend asking the nominator for assistance, trying the Wikipedia Resource Requests exchange, or (if all else fails, and the majority of sources seem solid), take the remainder on good faith.
Regarding distractions/other commitments: my first recommendation would be that you should only start a GA review if you're certain you have at least a week of reasonably free time (when possible, it's best to complete your initial comments within 7 days, then try to have the nominator finish their additional edits within another 7 days). If significant unforeseen distractions come up, you should ask another editor to take over your review, so that the nominator isn't left hanging for long.
Be specific about what edits you would like the nominator to make, and be careful not to confuse GA requirements with personal writing standards (it's easy to do!). As a couple of examples: in this review, you expressed concerns about the reading level of the article, but you didn't specify any particular words or sentences that you thought needed changing, and (as far as I know) Wikipedia does not have any hard-and-fast rules about the reading level of articles -- only that articles should aim to both minimize technical jargon and avoid oversimplifying. Additionally, while you may feel that adding more physical description of the article's subject would improve it, it's not clear how necessary that is when the article already has a good photo and the subject's appearance is not key to the story of her life. It's certainly okay to suggest improvements related to personal taste, but you should always make it clear that these are optional improvements (i.e., you recommend it, but it won't impact whether or not the article passes the review).

I hope this is helpful. Thanks for participating in the editathon! We'll be giving out barnstars soon. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]