Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

I and GreenMeansGo have a FA nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Willing Powel/archive1. Anyone with experience reviewing featured articles is invited to add their comments. Thank you!--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've just created Molly Guion, but can't find a source for her exact date of death. I've given the year, 1982, and sourced it to ArtUK. If anyone is able to find the exact date and a good source, that would be great. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Tacyarg, I did a sweep via Newspapers.com, but I'm not finding any obituaries, unfortunately. She was definitely still alive as of October 1980 (she's quoted in a newspaper article about paranormal activity!), but I can't find anything after that. I tried adding "Smyth" and "Borden Smyth" as well -- no luck. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. I'll try to remember to have another hunt in a few months, in case anything turns up. Tacyarg (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled by this lengthy and interesting article on an evidently very impressive woman architect, and would like input from others. There is a lot of material without references. A couple of specific questions - what do people think about the list of contributors to her festschrift? And the friends section? Also am wondering whether some of the detail about her contribution to the design and planning of Chandigarh would be better on that page. Tacyarg (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick notice for anyone who's interested: another

) 16:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is obviously proceeding well. Since the beginning of October, the following biographies of women have been promoted to GA:

• Kathy Arendsen - 19 October 2020
• Adelia Silva - 19 October 2020
• Alba Roballo - 18 October 2020
• Dawa Dem - 17 October 2020
• Elena Rybakina - 17 October 2020
• Jacki Sorensen - 15 October
• Mary Dee - 14 October 2020
• Lise Meitner - 14 October 2020
• Mary Myers - 11 October 2020
• Michaela Tabb - 11 October 2020
• Lady Apache - 10 October 2020
• Mary Florence Potts - 4 October 2020
• Alma Vessells John - 4 October 2020
• Loretta Preska - 3 October 2020
• Julián is a Mermaid
  - 2 October 2020
• Sue Bruce-Smith - 2 October 2020

I'm not sure what others feel but it seems to me it would be useful to include all of these under "Recent successes" on our main page. As far as I know, apart from Women in Red, there is no other widely accessible source for accessing recent GA biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

For info this article is up for peer review with a longer-term intention of getting it up to GA.--Smerus (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Preceding the global movement strategy implementation events scheduled for November 21&22 and December 5&6, regional, thematic, and language-based wiki communities are holding their own events. Wiki/women/womxn of all language communities will be coming together for a Zoom meeting this weekend. Hope many of you can participate.

• WikiWomen's User Group/WikiWomxn Meet Up for Movement Strategy
• Saturday, November 14, 2020, at 16:00 - 18:00 UTC
• Special guest: Katherine Maher, WMF CEO and Executive Director

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia's Meet Up for Movement Strategy Implementation will occur on Tuesday, 17th November 2020, from 5 to 7pm UTC via Zoom. Details here: m:Wikimedia UK/Events/Discussion about priorities for the English Wikipedia. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Should this talkpage (Talk:Rosika Schwimmer) be updated for GA? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the reviewer just forgot to update that part? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all -- I'm getting ready to nominate Frances Gertrude McGill for FA this month, and I wondered if any editors more experienced with FAC had tips about preparing for the process? I've put the article through peer review, and I've made quite a few improvements since then, but I'm still feeling a little daunted by FA reviews. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Iridescent is the best place to go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: Make sure all your sources are the best available, and particularly that any synthetic claims or contentious claims are sourced to decent secondary sources that make those claims explicitly; also, make sure you've added all the relevant information from the high-quality sources (biographies, etc) that you have. Once those have been taken care of, I'd say you're in pretty good shape. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Good advice -- I'll definitely take a closer look at my claims/sources before I nominate. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alanna the Brave, I noticed you never nominated. Do you need help with anything? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: Thanks for asking -- when I went to Iridescent's page for advice, I got a bit tangled up in two key comments: my Myrna Petersen 2005 source (heavily used) may technically count as a self-published source, and new nominators should first try to get involved at FAC by giving comments/reviews before nominating. I've reduced the article's reliance on Petersen (and may be able to argue that she's considered a subject-matter expert), but I haven't yet done anything at FAC and I'm still feeling kind of apprehensive about making the nomination. Probably silly. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSSELF: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. As for having done reviews, I had done none when I nominated the only article I have ever taken to FA. (I've pushed myself this year to try to review GAs, and it is a struggle for me. I am a better writer and researcher than I am a critic. My personal opinion is being able to critique an article does not necessarily make one a better writer. Doing what you are passionate about makes for better work.) It is scary to send an article to FA. For me, I was apprehensive after reading through several that had been contentious, and you know I try to avoid drama at all costs. But, I bit the bullet and jumped off the cliff anyway. I would encourage you to try and state in the nomination that you are a first-time nominator. Good luck if you decide to do it. I totally understand if you decide not to. SusunW (talk

) 14:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SusunW -- I appreciate the supportive words. Petersen's work on McGill was subsequently included in one reliable, independent publication: The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan (2006, University of Regina). I figure that might be enough to argue for at least limited usage? I'm definitely way more comfortable with the GA review system, but I've put so much work into Frances G. McGill that it seems a pity to be scared off by FA now. Maybe I'll give myself a deadline this month and take the plunge (regardless of outcome!). Then I'll at least know what it's like. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave That was where I finally came to. Just do it and see. It was mostly a positive experience and the article was definitely improved, which is always my goal. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave, that doesn't seem too concerning. If Iridescent isn't going to raise that point themselves as part of the review and Nikkimaria isn't bothered by it either, chances are no one will bring it up. And even if they do, the points you made about Peterson writing the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan entry plus their access to private sources like interviews with McGill family are good arguments in favor of the book being a reliable source. Worst case is it gets archived and you have to wait two weeks to renominate (i.e. much less than waiting several months to nominate to begin with). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777 and SusunW: finally nominated. We'll see what happens! Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Best of luck Alanna the Brave! I hope we both make it through the other side. ;) SusunW (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi members, I have expanded the article

06:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That's going to need a copyedit before nominating it; some of the structure and formatting is non-standard, but worst is the poor quality of English. From reading the article, I couldn't be sure if Varma is a man or woman. There's also unnecessary fluff. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, I performed self copy-edit myself, corrected terms and gender errors and removed fluff. Please have a look. — Amkgp 💬 19:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amkgp! Thanks for sharing this project with us. Varma sounds like a very interesting poet. I'll take a closer look at the article later today and see if I can offer any suggestions to help make it stronger. Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave, Help or review is highly appreciated. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 19:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amkgp: Okay -- you've covered lots of information about Varma's life, and I see a good amount of sources and citations. There are still some other formatting and content issues that should be addressed now, before you receive a formal GA review from anyone, so here are my suggestions:

• After you state Varma's full name at the beginning of the article,
  all subsequent mentions should refer to her by family name only
  . This is pretty standard for Wikipedia, unless there is a compelling reason to use the first name instead.
• The infobox and the lead section of the article show different birth and death dates -- this should be corrected!
• Some sentences should be reworded using more encyclopedic language for clarity (plain language for practical purposes). For example: "She was one of those poets who, while working for the wider society, saw the prevailing rhetoric, cry, within India and tried to give a vision that would remove darkness by becoming compassionate towards it" and "She adorned the anguish of the mind with a great affection and adornment as the suffering of the people in her novels and poems". I don't know what these sentences mean. It's very poetic language, which is good for poetry but not for a Wikipedia article. You should check for other sentences like these and rewrite them more clearly.
• The "Professional career" section is currently organized into one huge paragraph, and this should be split up into two or more paragraphs to improve readability. I recommend aiming to make sure that each paragraph is focused on one topic -- you could split it up according to time (decades) or type of work (publications, women's advocacy, etc). You just need to make it easier for readers to locate different information.
• The quote from David Rubin in the "Works" section should be moved to the "Criticism" section (and formatted like an ordinary block quote, similar to other literary criticism).
• The first two paragraphs in "Criticism" are lacking citations. I would also say that the literary criticism embedded within the notes (c, d, etc) should probably just be placed within the regular prose instead. Notes are good for side explanations, but key interpretations of Varma's work should be treated as important information.

Keep up the work, and good luck with your nomination! Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:MOS (2) Infobox & lead dates of her birth and death corrected (error was caused while translation) (3) Simplified some sentences keeping in mind to be encyclopedic and removed over poetic exaggerations. (4) Rearranged and bifurcation of "Professional career" section into two paragraphs namely 'Literary' and 'Women's advocacy'. (5) Moved quote from David Rubin to "Criticism" in block quote. (6) Converted notes [c and e only because online ref was available] of criticism section into quotes with refs. Thank you for the help. — Amkgp 💬

05:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Backlog

I am seeing a backlog of almost 20 articles as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green/Article alerts. It seems no one has passed in December 2020. A December 2020 blitz can be a good idea to reduce backlog before we head to 2021. Sorry my English may be bad 2402:3A80:112B:1E91:C1DC:8842:F691:28E7 (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup starts up in January, so there will be more people reviewing noms. Hopefully some of these will be caught then. Two articles at that list have reviews started, so I might check if they've stalled, and we can always pick the others up. Kingsif (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I recently decided that it was long overdue that I get some articles to GA that aren't one dead white male soldiers. I've gotten one to GA and nominated another-- can someone check that I added Lilias Margaret Frances, Countess Bathurst correctly to the listings? The other article I nominated for GA is Mildred Mottahedeh, fresh off of an AFD. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome Eddie891! Your addition of Lilias Margaret Frances is totally correct, and you can add Mildred Mottahedeh as well -- we count all GA nominations as contributions to those yearly goals (even if they're still waiting for review). Just add the GAN icon as an indicator. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi all -- we're nearing the end of the year, and we've done a pretty amazing job reaching our 2020 goals. Thank you to everyone who contributed! It's time to start thinking about goals for 2021 -- what do you see us aiming for? Similar stuff or different? We could easily expand our GA review goal (we knocked it out of the water), but the FA goal was tough (5 seemed to be quite enough). For our next themed GA nomination category, we might consider women in science, or BIPOC women, or something entirely different. Wildcard category should definitely remain. Please add your thoughts/suggestions. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I like you am amazed that in this crazy year we've done so well. Congratulations to us all! I agree with everything you said

BIPOC as a year-long topic, but will do my best to contribute whatever we decide. Perhaps we make the goals 25 for the annual topic, 25 for the wildcard and 20 reviews? Like you, more than 5 FA nominations seems like it would be difficult. SusunW (talk

) 00:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! I'm fine with copying whatever WIR decide for their year-long initiative for the themed category again (especially if it's BIPOC women, which easily encompasses almost any topic). In principle, that should help us get more members. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I will continue women in the media and drama category (right now it's Miranda Kerr) unless the another miscellaneous category (inevitably) catches my attention. I have yet to work on a Good Article for an Asian woman so that's what on my agenda for the upcoming year. As for the group, I think it would be fun to make fictional female characters into Good Articles. Trillfendi (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• @SusunW, Sportsfan77777, and Trillfendi: As a quick update, WiR has just chosen "women's rights" as their annual theme for 2021. I think this is pretty broad: it could involve women's right to vote, to work, to receive education, to compete in sport events, to access birth control, to serve in military, to drive, to run for political office -- any topic that involves women encountering and/or challenging gender-based discrimination in society (this could totally include fictional characters, Trillfendi). What would you say to our copying WiR again and going with women's rights as our themed GA category? Also, what if we aimed to include a minimum number of BIPOC women in our GA nominations from all categories (e.g. at least 13 of 25 articles must have a BIPOC focus)? It would be similar to our current aim of including women from all continents of the world, but it would give us a more explicit goal in terms of diverse coverage. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I love that idea Alanna the Brave, especially the minimum with a BIPOC focus. My focus for the year is going to be women's nationality (clearly a right that has been under studied). If anyone is interested in helping develop it drop me a note on my page. SusunW (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty -- I'm going to set up the new goals page later today. If anyone else has comments/concerns, we can always make adjustments over the next couple of weeks. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the women's rights topic for the year and having a BIPOC focus. I intend on aiming for some GANs in 2021. TJMSmith (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a new year so I'll drop here my subpage for requesting reviews for GA noms. I was inspired by TRM and the fact that I can sometimes get too picky when selecting noms to review. I know there are some great reviewers already in here, but if you've been waiting for a review for a while, I'm happy to help the project reach its 2021 goals. P.S. one of the unreviewed noms from last year is mine, so I can't help with that. Kingsif (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about the 2021 goals and came across pathologist Vivian Pinn who served as the inaugural director of the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health. Pinn's article already appears to be in GA-territory. Her successor, Janine Austin Clayton, could potentially be a GAN candidate, although I had trouble finding any additional info to expand that article. Does anyone have any thoughts or interest collaborating on either of these? TJMSmith (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

TJMSmith, I’ll help where I can on Vivian Pinn, what an amazing life. I started by punching up the infobox foto but see if you like it, can always switch it back. I’ll see what else I can add (forgive me if I work slowly!) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987, Great! The image definitely an improvement. We can chat further on article's talkpage. TJMSmith (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all,

I've submitted

) 23:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi AllegedlyHuman! Our "current nominations" bot searches for GA nominations connected with WikiProject Women or related projects, so the simplest way in is to tag an article's talk page with either WikiProject Women (for women born after 1950) or WikiProject Women's History (women born before 1950). I've tagged Tishaura Jones with WikiProject Women, so the article should show up in our list soon. Good luck with your nomination! Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AllegedlyHuman, you can also add the article to the new 2021 goal list! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks all for your help.

talk

) 07:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Timelines of women's history deleted -- need help with rewrites. Whizz40 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all! Do I need to do anything to get Katherine Garrison Chapin on the relevant lists, or is that all handled by bot + Wikidata? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AleatoryPonderings, a bot will add it to the general list. But you can also add it to our 2021 goals list!

Thanks—I didn't think it fit in any of the categories listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green/Goal Tracking/2021, but I just added it to the "recent successes" list; hope that's ok. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Anything fits into the wild card category! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding the GA on Mary Gordon (prison inspector), I've uploaded a photo of her to WikiCommons. It's not the best quality, so I didn't add it to the article. Figured you could decide on that. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi all -- does anyone know what happened to our list of GA articles (updated by JL-Bot) on the Women in Green main page? It's currently not displaying any GA articles, although if I open up the source code I can see that the content is still there. The page history shows that this display change happened after JL-Bot added an enormous amount of new content to the list on March 13 (86,559 bytes). Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Sportsfan77777 for advice! Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a problem with the template columns-list, not the bot. There seems to be a limit on how many items you can have in a list. I don't have any solutions in mind. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Might need to split some of the featured article links into a subpage, I suppose? Silverseren^C 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... tricky! Since the list is updated automatically, I'm not sure how we could split a single group of article links onto another page (unless JL-Bot has that option?). It's only the GA article group that's getting too large. I'll do some digging and see if JL-Bot has any other non-column options for lists (or ways to split up larger lists, etc.). Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you are probably correct that adding the "compact" parameter will fix it (because it doesn't use any templates). Here is an example of another project that already uses it: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sportsfan77777! I'll test it out in my sandbox first and see if it looks like a good fix. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is not with columns-list either. The problem is how many templates this page transcludes overall. We've hit the limit and this page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. We transclude {{icon}} a lot because of the lists. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Woah -- thanks for letting us know, Finnusertop. If I understand correctly, using "compact" should help us with that, as (along with columns-list) it removes the individual icons in front of listed GA/FA articles. But maybe it's also time to discuss what content we want to keep on the main page, and what can be moved/removed. The page is definitely pretty hefty at this point. Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi all -- I reviewed the GA nomination Esperanza Spalding (a young American jazz musician) last week and put it on hold for some improvements, but the nominator is a new editor who seems to have dropped off the face of Wikipedia for now. Would anyone be interested in stepping in to tackle the necessary edits? I'll hold off from closing the review for a few more days (the review is here). Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! An editor nominated Kathy Karpan for GA status, and I picked up the review. However, the nominator appears to have abandoned the review (see User talk:Jon698#Your GA nomination of Kathy Karpan, User talk:Jon698#Your GA nominations, and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Inactive GA nominator), so would anyone be interested in taking over the review? I'm happy to address the issues I've identified, along with any feedback you may have. Alternatively, if someone wants to step into the nominator role, I would happily remain as the reviewer. Edge3 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I was able to recruit a replacement reviewer. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you blame him, given the way he has been treated in the past? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies if this isn't a suitable place to ask (I've asked at the poetry wikiproject too), but I thought folks here might be able to help with an article-quality puzzle I am wrestling with. I've been working my way through coverage of

, for which the article is a work in progress.

What I'm stuck on is how and when to address individual poems. I have started a few articles:

article. (Someone has already proposed merging Sonnet LXX with Smith's biography article but I think Elegiac Sonnets is the more natural home). However, that seems likely to make the Elegiac Sonnets article awkwardly long and detailed, if it has a paragraph each on half a dozen individual poems. Am I being too precious about the various poetic details? Or overlooking a way of reorganizing the Elegiac Sonnets article that would make sense?

I'd really appreciate advice or bold edits: should the individual sonnets be merged in to a larger article? What's the best way to do so? Thank you!

talk

) 22:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Oulfis -- your approach (drafting articles for the poems that appear in standard anthologies and/or are more widely discussed) sounds very reasonable to me. I don't think it has to be a long and detailed article for it to be worth writing. I see that a number of Wordsworth's poems have short articles as well. If it meets WP:GNG, it should be fine, and having an individual article now (however short) will make it easier for future editors to expand on it as more material/discussion about Smith's work is developed over time. That's my two cents! Alanna the Brave (talk

) 15:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oulfis, I see in your reply to the merge proposal that there’s more to say from the secondary sources so I think it’s fine to keep the article in that case—I think as it stands right now, the suggestion just came because most of the commentary appears to be from the poet not from critics, but as long as you add latter, I agree with Alanna that shorter articles are not inherently bad! I especially like that it gives you the space to show and discuss the related image. Innisfree987 (talk

) 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Follow up question: Thank you for the helpful perspectives above -- I think the consensus is not to merge, but now I have no idea how to close the merge discussion. Reading

) 00:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

GA tasks bulletin board

Is this being used any more? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Not so much! It was an experiment to provide more support to editors working on GA nominations, but it hasn't really taken off. I think people are more inclined to just ask/answer questions on the talk page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we remove it? Might cause some confusion. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer: Let's leave the bulletin board page up for a week, just to give other editors the opportunity to weigh in on the topic first. I don't foresee any major objections (that page is a ghost town!), but it's good to double-check. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: sounds good to me! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like that page can be removed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey folks, I have two articles I am hoping to get reviewed:

) 00:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sylvia Rose Ashby has been de-nominated - another editor may wish to take a look and re-nominate it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk

) 10:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Women's shelter

Greetings,

Request for inputs: A Peer review request has been made for the article Women's shelter to brainstorm and understand information gaps and uncovered areas and to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved, please do share your inputs at the review page.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi all -- I hope you're doing well in these perpetually unsettled times. ;-) It's been feeling pretty quiet on Women in Green over the past few months, and our list of "women's rights" nominations is still looking a bit sparse. A goal is only a goal (I know I've struggled to find time or energy to contribute this year, and I know I'm not alone), but I'd love it if we were able to progress in that nomination goal some more before the end of 2021. To that end: what do you think about us setting up some kind of editathon event this fall? For example, we could arrange a 1-2 month event in which participants commit to improving and nominating at least one women's-rights-related article. It might attract new members and inject some energy into the project. I'm prepared to help with logistics/organizing if there's enough support for the idea. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm intrigued, particularly if 'fall' was Octoberish; I anticipate having a lot more spare time starting in late September. I've been doing some noodling on Olympe de Gouges but it would be fun to have some camaraderie. I haven't been involved in a WiG editathon before (only WiR ones) but I would certainly participate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I am interested in learning what it takes to create a GA. I'm not particulary knowledgeable about women's rights. I'm most knowledgeable about women in STEM, particularly in mathematics. I would be interested in participating in October or November. I'm not available in September. User:Mvitulli Mvitulli (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Count me in. I've written a few entries along this line (mostly Start-class or C-class bios of scientists or physicians) and would love expand one or two. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Alana the Brave for the initiative and would be happy to participate/assist. Would recommend a one month phase; my impression from participating in the GA backlog drives is that two month processes are harder to sustain. Certainly aware that WiR does three month edit-a-thons, but article creation is somewhat qualitatively easier in my mind. Also, would prefer October, rather than November...but that's purely personal. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave, I'd also be delighted to participate, though like Larry Hockett I have yet to take an article to GA status: would love to learn how and start getting it done! Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave, I'd be interested (but I don't want to firmly commit right now). Equally, although I've made some small contributions to articles for this project, like others, I'm still uncertain about what makes an article 'Good' (the WP guidance is great, I think I mean more my own judgement). Lajmmoore (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave I'm definitely interested in taking part. Having successfully nominated some articles for GA, and done some GA reviews myself, I'd be happy to help people newer to the process. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@LEvalyn, Larry Hockett, Oughtta Be Otters, and Lajmmoore: Thanks for the comments, all! It sounds like a one-month event in October would be most feasible for folks. To assist first-time GA nominators, I have a few ideas: we can prepare some resources/instructions beforehand, and perhaps myself and a few other experienced editors (@BennyOnTheLoose and Goldsztajn:?) can act as general "mentors" during the editathon (we can monitor talk page questions and also do some basic article assessments before they're nominated to help avoid any quick-fail situations). @Mvitulli: The theme of "women's rights" can be interpreted pretty broadly according to our nomination goal this year: any article relating to women encountering and/or overcoming gender-based discrimination. This could absolutely include women in STEM. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I like this idea! I agree that one month in October is sounding like the timing to aim for. I don't feel qualified to help much on the resources front, with only two GAs under my belt, but I'd be happy to assist with some of the "mentoring" / looking over other's articles. I've never really edited an article simultaneously with someone else but it seems fun. I also have access to a lot of sources through my university library which can be helpful with historic subjects. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help out. Not an expert in the topic, but happy to dive in. No preference for timing. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There are a large number of women scientists (for some reason in Microbiology) who were actively discriminated against. For instance, Nancy Hopkins was discriminated and sexually harassed by by Francis Crick. James Watson made a sexist depiction of Rosalind Franklin. Crick and Watson we’re a truly awful pair, but still won the Nobel Peace Prize. Barbara McClintock was discriminated against by Cornell. Joshua Lederberg, Edward Tatum and George Beadle were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but it was refused to Esther Lederberg (who was also refused tenure at Stanford). There are more, I’ve just got to find them. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave what do you think of compiling a list of women scientists who meet this criteria for WiG? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and also, on another note, I know Rowena Chiu, who was assaulted by Harvey Weinstein. For a long time I have been surprised she doesn't have her own article, which due to a clear COI I cannot create. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

While ideally we would all like to see articles on women at GA and even FA status, given the enormous amount of work (and sometimes heartbreak) involved in getting GA status, and it is never guaranteed, I do wonder if a better strategy would be to create 5-6 articles at start, B or C status for the same amount of effort. One can always go back later and try and upgrade pages you have created (or maybe someone else will).--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. Most people writing for WiG are actually trying to create good articles (hence the name). Even if the articles don't make GA, then they will be a lot better than if we hadn't made the attempt. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: I see where you're coming from, but I do think the direct peer review part of the GA process has genuine benefits for articles. Every article I've nominated has been improved by the subsequent review (even if some reviews are more difficult than others!). Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely. It was just a matter of balance with finite resources we all have! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 03:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't vouch for how motivated I'll be in the fall, but this sounds like a good idea. Kingsif (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• This sounds like an excellent idea, but it's a little outside my wheel-house content-wise. I can try to help out with reviews, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde93! Reviewing help would be great. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am interested and have some good candidates (for example Vilma_Núñez), especially if there were a reviewer who could be a little bit flexible with the one-week turnaround; I’m concerned I may not be able to work quickly enough. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Just some thoughts about article selection. Obviously, everyone has preferences and comes at this in different ways. Personally, I would be interested in getting the Danish Women Workers' Union to GA. However, for those who might be coming at GA promotion anew, choosing some low hanging fruit might be helpful. For example, there's quite a few B articles here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women's_History/Popular_pages which I suspect would require relatively limited work. Following on from Vanamonde's comment, I think getting a handful of experienced GA reviewers to commit to reviewing during the drive, rather than the editing process, would be a good idea and help allow people to make what would (ideally) be a more limited commitment (and thus easier to make!) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: That's a good thought about seeking out current B articles. Personally, I find reviewing GA articles to be a fairly substantial time commitment too (although that may just be my own slow speed!), but I like the idea of giving participants the choice between editing and reviewing articles. I think compiling a list of article candidates, including both women in science and women in other fields, would be a good plan -- maybe once we have a draft page created for this event we can all start pooling our ideas (I'll see if I can draft a page later this week). Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987 i think the one-week turnaround can always be negotiated to a longer period with a bit of discussion between nominator and proposer. i've also enjoyed working with you before and would be happy to review! Mujinga (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Mujinga, oh thank you so much—I’d enjoy that too! So perhaps we’ll tentatively pencil that in for this fall? I appreciate Alanna’s setting this up a bit in advance so I can wrap up a few projects and be able to give it my undivided attention. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987 nice one, let's talk closer to the time! Mujinga (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

nothing springs to mind for me to nominate as a GA right now but i have some experience of reviewing GAs and would be happy to review a couple of nominations in oct/nov. one at a time would prob work best for me. i'm also happy to give advice to any prospective reviewers, i have to say reviewing GAs really helped me understand what a GA is. for new reviewers it's worth looking over Wikipedia:Good articles and you'll see there's a friendly bunch of people up for helping at all stages of the process. Mujinga (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Interested Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Hello Alanna the Brave, thank you for proposing this initiative. I would be happy to contribute. Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• If Alanna thinks this a backlog drive will help achieve the project's goals for this year, then I support it. I personally have only aimed to do one women GA a year, but I'll see if I can think of another one before the year is out; alternatively, I can help out at reviews, such as Eugénie Brazier. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Reviewing assistance is definitely welcome! Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am super busy working on women's nationality and that has kept me away from doing any GA this year, however, I will try to fit in an article during this drive. 1) it will give me a break from legalese and 2) the woman I have in mind
  Elena Arizmendi Mejia was effected by the laws that deprived women of their nationality, which sort of keeps me on topic. SusunW (talk
  ) 15:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@SusunW: Yay! I figured you might still be otherwise occupied, but one GA nom would be a great contribution. And taking a short break from legalese sounds wise. ;-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I like this idea. It would be good for helping editors set up tangible goals, seeing what others are working on, and for attracting new editors to the project. I've been really busy the first half of the year, but I think I'd have time to contribute one article if we did an editathon. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Happy to do some reviews for this. I don't have any articles in the subject that would likely ever qualify for GA. —valereee (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• I would be very interested in the editathon in Oct. Like others, I need some guidance on how to make an article into GA. I would like to see Sojourner Truth's page improved to GA or FA. She is on the vital articles list, and certainly qualifies under women's rights. PMCH2 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• I am rusty doing GA reviews, so will need a bit of a refresher, but would be glad to participate in this event. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Hello Alanna the Brave, this is a great initiative and you can definitely count me in. I'm happy to be part of this. Let me know what the next steps are. Ptinphusmia (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Hey, I'd be interested, especially if it included some outreach to get other women involved. Netmouse (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm excited to see so many folks interested in participating! This is great. :-) Goldsztajn has kindly agreed to help me coordinate this event, and we're going to put our heads together and hash out some more of the details. I'll be back with updates (and probably requests for feedback) once we've made progress on that front. Stay tuned! Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We're making some great progress with our goals for 2021, but I'm noticing that the themed "Women's Rights" GA nomination target has been a little slow to get going. Here are a few suggestions for anyone who's struggling to pick a new GA project:

• Elizabeth Packard (1816-1897) was an American advocate for the rights of women and people accused of insanity (she was wrongfully imprisoned in an asylum and fought for years to win back her freedom).
• Cornelia Sorabji (1866-1954) was a pioneering Indian lawyer and women's rights advocate, noted for being the first woman to study law at Oxford University.
• Alice Milliat (1884-1957) was a French athlete who organized the first international women's sporting event and lobbied relentlessly for the inclusion of women's sports in the Olympics.
• Maude Abbott (1869-1940) was a Canadian physician who broke through gender discrimination in Canadian medical programs, becoming an international expert on heart conditions and founding the Federation of Medical Women of Canada.
• You may also be interested in this list of suffragists and suffragettes from around the world.

Feel free to suggest other articles (including non-biographical) here too! Let's see if we can get some more women's rights article nominations together over the next few months. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. These candidates may also interest others:

• Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793), a French revolutionary playwright and philosopher, and her 1791 Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen which got her beheaded.
• Sarojini Naidu (1879-1948), an Indian poet who was active in India's independence movement and held several important governmental positions.

I am not sure if I will work seriously on these articles myself, but there is a lot of good secondary material for them.

talk

) 01:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Alice Milliat article is now a GA, and Cornelia Sorabji has been nominated. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

Anarkali is a biography of a 16th century woman believed to be in romance & love affair of then South Asian prince and later Emperor, some history some mystery. The biography article needs more work to dig and add citations. And a lot of copy edit.

I haven't searched if Anarkali saga has been examined through feminist lens, if some one feels interested can help the article on that count and my intuition says article deserves at least some good (read feminist) copy editing support, pl do help.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Should a talk page banner be made for the yearly goal trackings similar to Template:WIR-00-2021? It would be useful for bringing attention to the project and highlighting past goals. Jon698 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea! Er, how do we do it? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea. We did discuss possibly creating a talk page banner (maybe a year or two ago?), but didn't quite follow through. The old template draft may still be living somewhere in our talk page archives. Do you have experience creating wiki templates, Jon698? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Alanna the Brave: No, but I think I could probably figure it out. Jon698 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Alanna the Brave: @Aussie Article Writer: How does this look? Template:WIG-00-2021 Jon698 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is what it looks like on a talk page. Talk:Beverly White Jon698 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is great Jon! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• There seems to be an "All Wikiproject Women in Green pages" category... do we need this? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jon698: Nice! That was fast work. I like how you've included the "please assume good faith" from Women in Red's banner. A couple of initial suggestions for the template: (1) we might as well start the text with "This article was improved...", since Women in Green focuses on improving existing content (not creating new content). (2) I like the idea of including a link to the current annual goals page (maybe word it as "the Women in Green 2021 Goals initiative") -- but make sure the link goes to this page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Alanna the Brave and Alanna the Brave: Fixed the linking issue. However, I think we should keep the "created" part since there are some articles that are created and quickly become GA. Like the Beverly White article I wrote. Jon698 (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jon698: Hmm -- some participants do certainly create articles from scratch before bringing them up to GA status (you're not alone there), but the creation isn't really the purpose of Women in Green (that's Women in Red's department). However, if you really want to keep the wording, I don't think it's an issue. Other suggested tweaks: change "This template" to "This article", and shift the year info (2021) into the portion of text that's linked to our goals page (instead of leaving it at the end of the sentence). Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Aussie Article Writer: @Alanna the Brave: Okay so just use the WIG-1 with {{}} around it on talk pages. BTW the "this template" thing only appears on templates while on articles it says "this article". I also had to create this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green/Meetup/1 due to the changes to the template. Jon698 (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jon698: I think the spare "Meetup/1" page would be a sensible place to set up the October editathon event we're doing next month, so I'm planning to put new content there later today. Additionally, I'm thinking (after looking more closely at WiR's templates) that our template tag for the 2021 goals should probably be located at "Template:WIG 2021", whereas "Template:WIG-1" should be used for specific events such as the October editathon (our first event). Does that make sense? I think I could make these changes myself (and fix any subsequent broken links), but I wanted to check in with you about the template shift first before doing anything. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone -- I've set up our WiG Good Article Editathon page for October. Participants can sign up now! This is a first for me, so please let me know if you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions for improving the event set-up over the next couple of weeks. A quick note on promotion: Goldsztajn has crafted an invite (template at bottom of event page). Women in Red has also offered to include a link to the editathon in their next member newsletter/invite for October, so that should help spread the word. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the template you can place on someone's talk page: {{subst:WPWiGDrive}}. Thank you Alanna the Brave and Goldsztajn for organizing this! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi all -- I need a volunteer to create a special barnstar for our upcoming WiG Good Article Editathon event in October (event page coming this weekend). Can you help? This barnstar will be given to all participants who nominate or fully review a qualifying article during the event period. It would be ideal to have it prepped and ready to go by October 1, but if necessary we can save the star as a surprise for the end of the event. ;-) Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, a project-specific barnstar might be quite nice, too. Afraid I can't help, though, I'm useless with graphics of any sort...Vanamonde (Talk) 21:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Agreed! I'll see what's possible. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Just a quick note: we now have a WiG project barnstar, courtesy of WomanArtistUpdates. I've placed it on the main page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful :) Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave that's above my skill level, but WomenArtistUpdates has done some amazing work for Women in Red. Possibly they can help? SusunW (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave I would be happy to give it a try. Hop over to my talk page to let me know what you have in mind. best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you WomenArtistUpdates! I'll hop over there right now. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone -- Goldsztajn and I have been hashing out the details of our planned women's rights-themed GA editathon in October, and we're almost ready to set up a proper event page for it. As part of our planned support for less experienced GA nominators, we're proposing that a select group of experienced GA reviewers (3-4 editors?) could assist by being on call to take on "pre-review assessment" requests during the editathon period of October 1-31, doing a brief 15-20 minute article assessment to spot any remaining major issues before the nominator submits their article for full GA review. These on-call reviewers could take on shifts according to availability (e.g., being on call for a single week during October), and would of course be welcome to work on their own projects as regular editathon participants as well. This extra support would be intended to help new GA nominators avoid "quick-fail" scenarios. Can you comment below if you are interested/available to help out with these pre-review assessments? Pinging a few editors: @BennyOnTheLoose, Vanamonde93, Mujinga, Ritchie333, and Valereee:. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Interested and avalaible, but do I fit in? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help. Less happy about the idea of shifts; my RL workload has always been unpredictable; I'm willing to bet I will have substantial time for Wikipedia on ~15 days in a month, but I cannot predict which 15. I'd rather have a bunch of us who are willing to respond at any given time. Eddie891, you've reviewed more GAs than I have; I'd say you're eminently qualified! Vanamonde (Talk) 06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help, but like Vanamonde my RL schedule is strange for at least the next two months. I'll have time, it just may come in fits and starts. —valereee (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of trying to avoid quick-fails. Most reviewers will patiently help a good faith nomination that isn't a quick fail to pass, in my experience. I'm also a bit concerned about the practicality of "shifts" and would prefer a central list of requests that we can all help out with. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Eddie891, Vanamonde93, Valereee, and BennyOnTheLoose: Fabulous! Thank you for your help. :-) Sounds like the idea of shifts is not inspiring enthusiasm, so we'll pass on that. If we can more generally aim to ensure that each request is taken on within 48 hours or so, I think that would be ideal. Goldsztajn and I can also pitch in when necessary. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• It might be worth compiling a list of article suggestions so people have an idea of where to start? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I was originally thinking the same thing, but when I started compiling a few of my own suggestions, I realized that most of them were already collected in several women's rights-related lists and timelines on Wikipedia (e.g., Timeline of women's legal rights, List of suffragists and suffragettes, and List of women's organizations). I'm now thinking that providing links to these lists/timelines should provide enough inspiration for editors. Does that seem reasonable? Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. Is there a draft page for the drive yet? We for instance usually start advertising GAN backlog drives 1-2 weeks in advance... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: We have a sandbox draft here, and I'm aiming to set up the proper event page by Sep. 18/19. You're welcome to take a look and give feedback on the talk page. One thing I'm trying to figure out this week is what we're going to call this event (keep the name basic or come up with something more interesting?). Alanna the Brave (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Alanna, a question: I, and likely others, would be willing to do actual GA reviews in addition to 20-minute reviews. Is there a way to track GANs submitted for this editathon? I wonder if it would be useful to create one, if not? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Possibly? Currently, GA nominations for the editathon are listed on the editathon page under "Article outcomes". If we create a specific talk page template for edithon articles, however, that might be another way to track them. I'll do some thinking on this. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware; I'll watchlist that page too; thanks! Vanamonde (Talk) 21:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone -- I wanted to let you know about some edits I've made to talk page templates for Women in Green (taking a leap here, hopefully no missteps). After a conversation with Goldsztajn, I took the step of repurposing the WIG-1 template for specific use in our recent October editathon event (WiG Meetup 1) and tagging relevant articles. I've also created the WIG 2021 template, which can be used to tag any article improved by WiG members during 2021. If you have any questions or concerns (or ideas on how to improve our template system further), feel free to comment. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, This is

.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, I just wanted to stop by and leave a big THANK YOU to all the editors who helped with the first Good Article I've worked on - it's Jacquetta Hawkes! Firstly, thanks for running the Women in Green project in general - I wouldn't have even thought about going for a GA if it wasn't for this space. Secondly thanks to Eddie891 and Goldsztajn for the mini reviews - it's really kind of you to take the time, and the mini aspect made the whole process feel more approachable. Thanks very much to Caeciliusinhorto as well for the more formal review. I've really appreciated everyone's comments and how constructive the process has been! I'll have a little rest and then dip my toes in helping to review - tips on that definitely appreciated! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: Congrats on your first GA! I'm really glad to hear you've gotten that valuable support out of Women in Green (and from our excellent mini-reviewers in the editathon). Keep up the good work, and always feel free to ask for advice. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated Bolivia Carmichaels, Flawless Shade, and Poison Waters for Good article status, if any project members are interested in reviewing. Trying to work on improving coverage of PDX's LGBT culture and history. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Poison Waters has been promoted. One down, two to go! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Inspired by the Women in Green report on the Women in Red talk page, I have put together some of the principal WiR results for 2021.

• Overall the percentage of women's biographies increased from 18.67% in January to 19.10% at the end of the year; there were 24,787 new biographies of women although the majority of these were not created specifically under Women in Red. By the end of the year, there were 355,957 biographies of women on the English Wikipedia.
• Our WiR metrics pages record a total of 26,805 articles created in 2021, 3,301 less than the 30,106 created in 2020. This can be explained by our discontinuing manual additions to the lists from February 2021, subsequently relying fully on bot-listed results.
• Membership according to our mailing lists was 1,185 including 114 members who joined in 2021. (These figures may not fully reflect membership as a few members have requested removal from the lists while a number of non-members have added their names.) About half of those listed are no longer active.
• A total of 5,722 articles were listed as new or improved on our meetup pages, of which 2,080 were on #1day1woman, 1,598 from the Continental Contest (Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania), 1,584 under other monthly priorities and 460 in connection with our year-long emphasis on Women's rights. The most popular topic was our three-month-long Olympics & Paralympics with 1,185 new or improved articles of which 195 were subsequently deleted.
• The most popular monthly priority was Women writers in September with 225 new or improved articles, the least popular Gender studies in April with only five articles listed.
• According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/DYK, over 500 articles tagged with a Women in Red banner were highlighted on the Main Page as DYKs. For example 105 of those under #1day1woman were displayed as DYK. Many articles were also displayed on the Main Page under In the news.
• Articles created under WiR and subsequently ranked FA or GA can be seen at Women in Green.

These results may be useful in discussing priorities for future planning.--Ipigott (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks Ipigott -- I think it's helpful (and somewhat inspiring) to see summaries of what these two projects have accomplished in the previous year. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave: It was a great idea to provide a summary. It's good we are able to work together on these projects. Maybe someone could put a piece together for The Signpost. While I'm here, have you seen that J. K. Rowling is likely to be delisted? Looks as if this is one more case of a woman receiving more critical treatment than would be expected.--Ipigott (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ipigott, hope you don't mind my butting in. I don't think it's fair to say that Rowling's receiving unfair treatment, at least as far as FAR is concerned. I've been a member of this project for a while; I've written two FAs that are biographies of female authors; and I'm in support of delisting. That article is far off of an FA standard; I wouldn't pass it for GA as it stands. The goals of this project aren't served by keeping it listed. If all you are referring to is the content of that article, and not its FA status, that's a different debate. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: Thanks for "butting in". I do not question that there are a number of serious problems with this bio. But the reason for instability seems to me to be indeed due primarily to the many problems faced by Rowling as a result of comments she has made on subjects of wide interest. Rather than rushing for rapid delisting, it might have been constructive to allow further work on the article by contributors to FAR such as participants to Women in Green. It's always easier to prevent delisting than to try to revive a delisted article. I just thought I should draw the attention of Alanna and other members of WiG to the FAR discussion. It looks to me rather late in the day but do you think there is any chance of a compromise along these lines? After all, we are all working towards improvement of the coverage of women on Wikipedia. And how about working a bit further on Mary Docherty to bring the article up to FA?--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@

Vonda McIntyre, but RL has to allow me time for that :) Vanamonde (Talk

) 17:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Biography lead section

I've been asked if I was aware of any research regarding biography lead sections on Wikipedia, specifically comparing women's and men's biog leads. Is anyone aware of such research? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of memoirs by first ladies of the United States/archive1 for FL. Is there a spot to list it in the goals? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891 I am totally in favor of adding Featured Lists to the Featured article nominations goal. Either FA or FL, IMO require a ton of work and lots of eyes to ensure quality. SusunW (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I agree with Susun! Feel free to add it to our Featured Article nomination goal list. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave, just wanted to check if FLs can be listed this year as well. (Just nominated one.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Olivaw-Daneel: Absolutely! I've just updated the text on the 2022 Goals page to clarify that FLs can also count towards Goal #4. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear member users of Wiki project Women in Green,

You are humbly invited to participate and organise Feminism and Folklore 2022 writing competion on the English Wikipedia from 1st February 2022 till 31st March 2022. This year Feminism and Folklore will focus on feminism, women biographies and gender-focused topics for the project in league with Wiki Loves Folklore gender gap focus with folk culture theme on Wikipedia.

You can help us in enriching the folklore documentation on Wikipedia from your region by creating or improving articles based on folklore around the world, including, but not limited to folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, women and queer personalities in folklore, folk culture (folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales and more. Users can contribute to new articles or translate from the list of suggested articles. You can also expand existing article to meet the GA guidelines.

Organisers are requested to work on following action items to sign up their communities for the project:

1. Create a page for the contest.
2. Set up fountain tool/dashboard.
3. Create the local list and mention the timeline and local/international prizes.
4. Request local admin for site notice
5. link the local page and the fountain/dashboard link on the meta project page.

Learn more about the contest and prizes from our project page. Feel free to contact us on our meta talk page or reach out to us on Email if you need any assistance.

Looking forward to your immense coordination.

Thank you.
Tiven Gonsalves
Feminism and Folklore Team

--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 06:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all -- I've lately been hearing about situations in which older FA articles (e.g., J. K. Rowling) have come under review and/or been delisted due to article degradation over time. Up until now, Women in Green has been focusing on improving and promoting new GAs/FAs, but maybe it's time we thought about how we could also contribute towards maintaining or repairing existing GA/FA articles. Editor Z1720 is currently trying to recruit folks to assist with URFA/2020, a task force that is reviewing older FAs (promoted before 2016) with the goal of catching and repairing existing issues and preventing articles from being sent to FAR for formal FA review/delisting. I suggested to ZI720 that perhaps WiG and WiR could assist with URFA/2020 by working together to tackle a different neglected FA article about women each month -- is this an project that you might be interested in? Additionally, maybe we could put together a WiG team for this kind of "damage control" work? I suspect we would need at least one or two editors with FA review experience (who could assess the repair work required for articles), plus several editors willing to do the leg work of copy edits, research, citation repairs, etc. Let me know your thoughts. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC) Pinging: @Sportsfan77777, Eddie891, Ipigott, SusunW, Innisfree987, Vanamonde93, Mujinga, LEvalyn, Goldsztajn, Ritchie333, and BennyOnTheLoose:.

As I said at WiR's page, long-term, I'd like to participate; however, in the immediate future, I am still trudging through women's nationality. In 2021, I managed to write all of the Americas, the Pacific, and most of Africa. This year, I figure I will be working on the handful of Africa that is undone, Asia, and Europe. Perhaps by 2023 I will have enough background to actually write the articles on the legal phases globally of women's nationality and the movement to stop nations from stealing women's nationality. That said, the legalese is difficult and I truly enjoyed the break offered by WiG's editathon, and am honestly looking forward to another. I have limited time, because of this, but might be able to work on a FA article in danger of being delisted, as long as it was a collaborative effort, and it's a dead person. The problem with living people at either GA or FA is that the articles are unlikely to remain stable over time and thus require lots of monitoring to maintain, which I don't have at present. Hoping everyone has a productive and happy new year. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Saving articles at FAR, or pre-emptively cleaning old FAs up that have been highlighted at URFA or elsewhere, is certainly a worthwhile effort to make. Like SusunW, though, I'm not sure I have it in me to be the major contributor to any such, unless an article happens to be in an area where I'm already fairly familiar with source material. Real life isn't going to get less busy any time soon, I'm afraid. I would be willing to participate in URFA, as I've been meaning to for a while, and to highlight articles here that could use our efforts. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

In connection with J. K. Rowling which was about to be delisted from FA, I should let you all know that thanks to Z1720 we have been granted some extra time to work on improving the article, in particular by adding a section on literary analysis within the next week. I'll start putting something together myself in my user space as soon as time permits, probably tomorrow. Anyone with suitable experience interested in helping me along should let me know on my talk page. I'll then be able to keep you posted on progress.--Ipigott (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

For anyone reading this, there's a draft at User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling literary analysis, based on conversation in Women in Red. Feel free to contribute. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• I went to look through some of the FAs needing attention, to gauge whether the topics would interest me, and wow there are so few bios of women! I don’t know which way that cuts—does it make sense to spend editor energy “saving” existing FA status, or would folks be more motivated to improve content with free rein to choose the topic? Of the names I saw, Harriet Tubman was the only one that really caught my eye—and of course someone has already taken care of that entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Some older FAs are going to need a lot of effort to avoid delisting - standards for FAs have risen over the years. Like others, I might be interested in working on some specific cases - do we have project Wikipedia:Article_alerts for these somewhere? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone! It seems we have some interest in supporting efforts to spruce up old FAs, but not enough time/capacity to make this into a serious initiative of ours at the moment (understandable). @Vanamonde93: If you want to participate in URFA and highlight some WiG-relevant articles that need attention (especially light/moderate tasks), that would be very welcome. Folks can jump in to help whenever they're able. @BennyOnTheLoose: I don't think we've currently got article alerts for FA articles under review -- do you know how to set one up? Alternatively, I might be able to wrangle a JL-Bot listing. @Innisfree987: Fixing up the heavily degraded FA articles would probably take as much effort as starting a new FA nomination from scratch, so I think you're right that it wouldn't make sense for us to spend too much of our energy on this. At the same time though, as FAs about women are limited in number, it seems a pity to let articles be delisted (and no longer be in the running for Today's Featured Article) when the repairs are more manageable. Maybe it's something we should look at on a case-by-case basis. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have been following this discussion since Alanna started it, and thank you everyone for incredible and honest feedback on how this project can help us at

FA criteria

, others are very well maintained and meet the criteria now. Here's a couple of ideas that your project might consider:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green/Goal Tracking/2022 is a great yearly goal page that I wish other Wikiprojects would adopt. Would this project consider adding a goal to "Have 5 articles about women or women's work be deemed "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020"? This would bring a goal to this project that is obtainable while leaving the possibilities open to what can be improved (as "women" is a broad topic that accompanies all sorts of topic areas.)
• Add the WiG banner to article talk pages of FAs that concern women and women's work: if this banner is on the talk page, FAR nominators will have to inform this talk page about the article being brought forward at FAR. This will inform members of this project and perhaps someone will step forward to save the FA.
• Ask URFA/2020 editors to curate a list of FAs that are close to meeting the FA criteria. This allows WiG to have "easy saves" and perhaps introduces editors to the FA criteria: when improving an FA, an editor is often working with experienced FA writers and reviewers who offer feedback on improvements. A review can identify concerns, and an editor can make the improvements, gaining valuable skills on how to write an FA.

Those are just some ideas at the top of my head. There are many editors at URFA/2020 with many different specialties that will propose much better ideas than what I have here. We just hope that editors will join our process to help us get through this list more quickly. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@

general banner we could use, and I'm willing to go through our list of relevant FAs and implement this. Adding an extra URFA goal (5 articles) to our 2022 Goals page is certainly feasible -- if others are okay with WiG making this a goal, I'm up for it. Alanna the Brave (talk

) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose: we do have an article alerts page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green/Article alerts. Currently it only lists GA nominations, but I've fiddled with the settings so it also lists GA reassessments, and Featured Article candidates and reviews. Hopefully that will start coming through tomorrow... ([1]) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Following-up on this conversation, would WiG be willing to add the goal of "Have 5 articles about women or women's work be deemed "Keep" at FAR or "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020."? (The addition of "Keep at FAR" expands upon my proposed goal above). I would also be willing to maintain/clerk this goal list. Z1720 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, I was just making peer review comments on an interesting article about Corry Tendeloo, who I'd never heard of before. The plan is to get it to FA, so it might be of interest to people here. There's a specific line I thought maybe a French speaker could help to refine a bit, namely ... "Tendeloo frequently used a French saying to describe her own fighting approach: "Frappez, frappez toujours!", which translates into "Repeat, repeat making your point!"". Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been rewriting our article on

) 11:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Following a successful good article review, I've just nominated Olive Morris for peer review, with the idea to then list it for featured article status. As @Carbon Caryatid: pointed out, June 2022 would be the 70th anniversary of Morris' birth and seems like a decent deadline right now for FA. If anyone has advice on the process that'd be welcome, I've never done a FA nomination although I have given comments a few times. Mujinga (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm still hip deep in nationality laws, but this one peaked my interest. I'll give it a look-over. SusunW (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your look-over was amazingly helpful SusunW! Just swinging by here to say the article is now at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Olive Morris/archive1) Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Mujinga I've noted that I completed spot checks and given a few comments for you to review. So happy for you that this is happening. Good luck! SusunW (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions for bringing Lucy Feagin to GA status. I'm planning on adding what I can and then having someone copyedit it. There are more things that I can add, but I'm running in to the issue that many sources I find are repeating what I already have in the article. Are there similar GA articles with similar coverage that you know of that I can compare the article to? SL93 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to be nominated! Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Kingsif Thanks. I nominated it and submitted a copyedit request just in case. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

is a working group dedicated to reviewing and improving [[WP:FA|featured articles[[ that were promoted before 2016. A few months ago, I came to women in green asking for help with FAs concerning women and their work and received a very positive response. This year, URFA/2020 wants to finish reviewing all articles promoted from 2004-2006. This is where we need your help.

We need subject-matter specialists to look at these articles and either document that they meet the

, improve them until they meet the criteria or document concerns on the article's talk page. Subject matter experts are especially important because they know if the prose includes all necessary information, the sources are high-quality, and if there are any other concerns that an unfamiliar editor would not know to look for.

Below is a list of articles that fall under WiG's purview. If you believe the article meets the featured article criteria, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on

.

Here is the list of articles under WiG's purview that were promoted or last reviewed in 2004-2006:

• Concerto delle donne
• Mary II of England
• Natalie Clifford Barney
• Angelina Jolie

Thanks in advance for your help. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for providing this list, and I'm so sorry I didn't respond to your last suggestion re: an addition to our 2022 Goals (I've been a bit overwhelmed by RL things over the past couple of months). I'll revisit the idea, and hopefully we can help with some of these or other articles. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

At first read through,

Mary II of England doesn't look like it's in terrible shape – I will leave some comments on the talkpage, but I think that's definitely within striking distance of FA. Natalie Clifford Barney I haven't read thoroughly, but it has several {{citation needed}} tags which will need fixing; I will try to find some time to go through it properly. The other two are way outside my area. Caeciliusinhorto (talk

) 17:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)