This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Metropolitan Museum of ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of ArtTemplate:WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of ArtMetropolitan Museum of Art articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article was created or improved during the Met's art by women edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in June 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
I realise you may be working quickly but I don't think you understand whats going on here. Easy mistake to make. You may have thought the prime purpose was to request a RT - but no. Luckily this was only a courtesy note - but its sad that it was deleted. A nice request for more info might have prevented your nonconstructive contribution. Best wishes Victuallers (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Victuallers, but this really looks like a request to RT, and can't be interpreted any other way that I can see. If there's something I'm missing, feel free to enlighten me. Waggie (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thats what it looks like. What it doesnt show is that this article was written very recently. Which watchers off this page will know. It doesn't show that the article has been improved - which again readers of this note who watch this page would realise. Primarily what the note says is 1. THANKS! 2. You'll be pleased to know that your article has been noticed by the WiR project. 3. The article has been tweeted, have a look and see what it looks like. 4 (The bit you saw) was a request to spread the good news. If "4" had been the primary purpose then your action would have been useful. As it is readers off this page can now read 1, 2 and 3 (which I have now made explicit) and I must warn them that they should not use any other project to mention it... ever! I have lost interest however in this and I will return to the prime purpose. Victuallers (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
