Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

GA nom not showing up in article alerts

Hey all. I nominated The Sacrifice (Oates novel) for GA last month, but it has not appeared in the article alerts. I can't tell why it does not appear when Uncle Tom's Cabin does, since both are transitively in Category:Literature by women. Can anyone see what category is missing? Ruбlov (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It's based on what WikiProjects they are part of – at the moment the bot only looks at articles with the WikiProject Women talkpage banner, and those whose talkpages are in Category:All WikiProject Women-related pages. That category I think is automatically populated, but I don't know from where exactly - certainly the WikiProject Women's History banner, possibly other places.

So the easy solution is: add either template:WikiProject Women or template:WikiProject Women's History. In the longer term, though, we should maybe consider whether AAlertBot can be coaxed to look at the other women-related wikiprojects? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I think it would make sense to include WikiProject Women writers in the projects that AAlertBot looks at. Ruбlov (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Natalie Clifford Barney at FAR

I have nominated Natalie Clifford Barney for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I posted this notification as this article falls under this project's purview. Would WiG like to receive more notices like this when women or their work is brought to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Z1720 just to reply, yes I'd say it's worth posting such messages here, even if it's not a particularly busy noticeboard Mujinga (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mujinga. Either I or other FAR editors will post FAR notices here until they are unwelcome (hopefully it won't get too spammy). Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hildegard Binder Johnson - Suggestions?

I was thinking of submitting Hildegard Binder Johnson for GAN and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for improvement before I did so. While I do have a few Good Articles to my name, I was basically not involved in the actual nomination procedure for most of them, except for one which was... *checks*...nominated 12 years ago. So, one could say I'm a bit out of practice. Silverseren^C 23:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Silver seren I took a quick look through. My off the top of my head comments, 1) I think it's probably a preference thing but it seems weird to refer to someone by a name before they had it. To read "Hildegard Binder Johnson was born" made me do a double take. Johnson is not a German name, so I wondered if she Anglicized it. Until I got to the "Personal life" section and learned it was her husband's name, I was still trying to figure that out. Were it me, I'd call her Binder until she married, and I'd remove the personal life section and work it in to the second paragraph of the career section. A personal life isn't a separate thing, just part of a life, and in the case of women typically is crucial to explain name changes. 2) "After threats against her person and what she saw beginning to happen to her Jewish friends in the country, she fled to England" is the first sentence of a paragraph and we have never introduced the subject as a noun before using a whole slew of pronouns. I'd probably replace one of those "her" or "she"s with Binder. 3) I don't see a legacy section. I would, as I said, move the personal info and re-title the last section death and legacy, giving a synopsis of remembrances, i.e. This says a prize and lecture hall are named after her and this says she was interviewed as part of the film project of the American Association of Geographers. Did she donate her papers anywhere? Just some thoughts. SusunW (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Women in Green plans/goals for next year?

Hello all -- it's closing in on the holidays, and I thought I'd start the conversation around developing our Women in Green goals for 2022.

• Any thoughts around our annual themed GA nomination goal? Women in Red has chosen "Climate" as their year-long theme for 2022 (climate scientists, environmentalists, activists, etc), and I would be fine with following suit -- seems like a topical theme. I think we struggled a bit with reaching 25 articles for our themed goal this year -- maybe we should lower that number for 2022? Or maybe it would be helpful for us to regularly "spotlight" themed article candidates several times per year, for inspiration?
• I feel like we should keep our "wild card" GA nomination and GA review goals the same, or even lift them higher -- we seem fairly comfortable hitting those marks.
• Would you like us to hold another GA editathon event in 2022 (or even multiple events)? Similar or different? I feel like this year's event was reasonably successful: we had 11 women's rights-themed articles nominated for GA status (with most already reviewed and passed), and I heard from at least a couple of participants that the event encouraged them to nominate or review their first GA article, which is great.
• Any totally different goals/plans/initiatives you think we should consider?

Let me know your thoughts! Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I will still be slogging away at women's nationality. I'd like to hope that I finish, but I still have two continents to go, so it's unlikely that I can contribute much else. But if you do an editathon, I'll commit to it. SusunW (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The editathon def was what motivated me to do my first proper GA nomination (as opposed to just helping out as a secondary editor), so doing that again would be great—and hopefully less work for organizers since the format is set now? I’m not sure I’ll have a climate-related candidate just because I don’t know the science very well, but it’s certainly a worthy topic! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty -- two votes for another editathon! It should definitely be easier to set up in future. @Goldsztajn: Maybe we could attempt two editathons in 2022, one themed and one "wildcard"? One spring and one fall? Something to chew on. Alanna the Brave (talk)

Yes, happy to support and think trying for two would be good. One might be a geographic focus? I'm also involved with the Organized Labour project, we could consider co-sponsoring one editathon (it might be an idea to identify other projects with which to co-sponsor editathons). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Although I wasn’t paying attention to the fact that Women in Red is doing a climate initiative, this month I am working on making a Latina climate change expert, Nicole Hernandez Hammer, a good article. As for wild cards, I still think it would be fun to make a Disney princess green, only half of them are. Phew, last year I was going through hell in my personal life, so I was too out of it to successfully commit to my WIG noms though I'd like to revisit them by next year at the very least. I won't get too audatious this year. Trillfendi (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Update: I've created a new goals page for 2022. I've tentatively gone with "Women and the environment" for our themed GA goal (a little broader/more inclusive than simply "Climate"), and I've adjusted the objectives for both the GA nomination goals (20 articles for the themed goal, 30 for the "Wildcard" category). GA review goal and FA goal remain the same. I've also created a new {{WIG 2022}} talk page banner that can be added to all articles worked on in 2022 as part of the Women in Green project. Old goal pages can be viewed under the "Past goals" section on our main page. Happy new year! Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Just to note, as people have prob already seen, there's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022 going on. All the best for 2022! Mujinga (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hi - I am not seeing where I can add a profile to WIG. Usually I can find a "list of" to add it to. Is there an on-going list of WIG artiles? The article I want to add is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisabeth_Freundlich Thanks for the help TheTypingKat (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@TheTypingKat: WiG is primarily focused on bringing articles about women/women's works up to Good Article (GA) status or above, so we don't really have an ongoing list for articles that have just been more generally improved. From a quick assessment, it looks like Elisabeth Freundlich still needs some more work before it's ready to be nominated for GA status, but if you decide to take it down that route in future you can add the nominated article to our 2022 Goals page (probably Goal #2). In the meantime, however, you're welcome to add the 2022 WiG talk page banner to Elisabeth Freundlich (the banner is for use on any article improved by a WiG member, regardless of current article status). Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I think I did it right. There is a green square that says "documentation" (creat)(purge). I'm not sure if that's supposed to be there too. I'm confused about templates and banners. I went to "edit source" and copy pasted the html. I tried inserting a template typing WiG 2022 but it didnt' work. How do I insert this as a template without the source code? Thanks. TheTypingKat (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to create a list of "frequently used" banners or templates? Or do you just memorize their names or look them up each time? TheTypingKat (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Shameless solicitation for input

Hello Women in Green. Never been here before, but I'm nominating the article Evelyn Gandy (a pioneering woman politician from the state of Mississippi, US) for GA and I'd like to welcome any additional input into the article. I think I've covered most of the bases, but if any of you have a pile of books on Mississippi history or access to some archive that has additional info, it would be appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog Drive, June 2022

Details are here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2022. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery

I have nominated Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Original Stories from Real Life

I have nominated Original Stories from Real Life for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

May Check-in -- current projects, new editathon event?

Hello everyone -- I've been too busy/tired to do much Wikipedia work over the past few months, but I'm very slowly emerging from my Wiki-hibernation. How's everyone doing? What are you up to? We had discussed potentially doing two GA editathon events this year -- would you be interested in having one in June or July? Let me know what you think (or if there's something else you think needs attention). Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to say I got Olive Morris to FA, it will be on the frontpage in June hopefully. SusunW helped a lot with that! Now I'm considering if perhaps one of my other women GAs could be taken to FAC but the ones I am looking at (Mary Clarke (letter writer) and Ann Smith (activist)) are both quite short. I just asked for advice here and got some useful feedback. I'm debating what to do.

By the way, when I put Olive Morris up for FA it seemed there hadn't been a FA about a woman in a while, now it looks like there are a few coming through, such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corry Tendeloo/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tessa Sanderson/archive1. I'd be happy to participate in another GA editathon, I should mostly have time in the next months with the occasional gaps. Worth noting perhaps is that there is also a discussion about a general GA review drive here although it hasn't generated much energy yet. Mujinga (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Congrats! I'll look forward to seeing Morris on the front page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I've had two women's bios promoted to GA so far this year, the same as this time last year. I finished 2021 with nine promoted, so probably aiming to match that, as well as hopefully getting the Tessa Sanderson article to FA as mentioned above. Many thanks to editors here who have helped. I've also got a peer review for Women's Professional Billiards Championship open. I haven't worked on any articles about that would help towards our target for nominations about women and the environment - any suggestions, either about specific articles, or categories to browse? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Sounds like your projects are going well! Here are a few "women and the environment" article suggestions: Lady Eve Balfour (English organic farming pioneer), Wangari Maathai (Kenyan founder of the Green Belt Movement), and Rosalie Edge (American bird conservationist). Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll make time to do one/two if we schedule an event. I miss my women and was re-energized, in spite of the stress reviewing causes me, by looking at Olive Morris and Corry Tendeloo. Law is boring. I may give up the project and just go back to working on women. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW: Glad to have you on board, as always. You've done a staggering amount of work on that women's nationality project, and I think whether you continue it, take a break or end it early, you've made a huge impact regardless. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Alanna the Brave. I'm still going to write the core article on women's nationality, just have to figure out how to structure it. But, I miss writing about women and telling their stories. SusunW (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I've not been so active on wp recently, as I've had other things keeping me busy; where I've had time, I've been doing reading for Ancient Greece for The Core Contest. After that, I'm probably going to submit Corinna for FA. I've got a couple of ancient women I've been working on for GA on the horizon; a summer GA editathon might give me the push I need to finish one of those! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a few current featured list candidates, e.g. List of female 24 Hours of Le Mans drivers, List of female chess grandmasters, Angel Locsin filmography, List of awards and nominations received by Judy Ann Santos, and Frances McDormand on screen and stage that editors here may be interested in. I don't think that these are shown on our article alerts. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Added FLC and FLCR to our article alerts Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Goldsztajn: Would you be up for helping organize a new editathon event for next month? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Alanna the Brave, hope you're well. I've got quite a bit on at the moment in RL - I'm not sure I could help consistently enough in order to get things going for July. Nevertheless, what areas did you have in mind for me to work on? Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hey @Goldsztajn -- okay, no worries. :-) I'm going to set up a new event page this week, and I'll let you know if there's something particular you could help with (time permitting). Maybe a new event invite template? Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

July GA editathon is now open for signups

Hello all -- just a quick notice to confirm that the July GA editathon is good to go! The event page is open to signups, and I've included an invitation template there that you can use to invite other editors. If you have any questions/comments/concerns, just let me know. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteers for a July editathon event? Call-out for assistance

Hi all -- I've nearly finished preparing a new event page, but if we're really going to hold a GA editathon next month, I'll need a bit of help, so I'm just going to do a call-out here to see if we've got the collective time/capacity (if not, we can push it back to another month). There are two areas I need help with:

• Promotion. I'll need 1-2 volunteers to help create a new event invitation template and spread the word over the next two weeks (to individual WiG members, via WiR's newsletter, etc.).
• WIG mini-reviews (20-minute assessment team). I'll need 2-3 volunteers with solid GA review experience who can provide occasional 20-minute assessments of ongoing GA projects during the editathon (upon request). This is intended to help new participants who are less familiar with GA standards avoid quick-fail situations. Pinging BennyOnTheLoose, Mujinga and Vanamonde.

Let me know if you're interested/able to help, and if a July editathon is doable we'll finish pulling things together this week. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy for you to put me down as a reviewer :) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Caeciliusinhorto! :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I can post it on WiR's prep page and ask them to include a note about the event in their July events, but I need to know in the next few days. I've already given a head's up. SusunW (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Susun -- I'll aim to have things finalized (one way or the other) by end-of-day Wednesday. Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm simply not going to have the time in July; thanks for thinking of me, though, and I'd be happy to chip in next time. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries -- next time! Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Same for me as Vanamonde, this all sounds great but I don't know how much I'll be on my computer in July Mujinga (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga Totally fair -- thanks for letting me know, and I hope you enjoy your summer. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy to help out with mini-reviews. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks Benny. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• @SusunW: Here is the new WiG editathon page/link for WiR. I think I've crossed enough t's and dotted enough i's for us to start promotion! Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Great Alanna the Brave. I'll post it there now and at the first of the month I'll put a reminder on the talk page. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Climate change mitigation researchers

FYI, this is a relatively new category. It could use some filling out: Category:Climate change mitigation researchers Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: I've added a few biographies that look relevant. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Original Stories from Real Life

It may be of interest to this project to learn that Original Stories from Real Life by Mary Wollstonecraft has been demoted from its status as a featured article. It seems to me it would not be difficult to incorporate the missing inline references which seem to have been the main problem. This would at least pave the way for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sunita Narain

I made a start on this article, before discovering a chunk of copyvio that had to be removed. A Wikipedia library search returns 5,996 results, but most of these are articles by Narain or her being quoted. Does anyone have suggestions for further suitable sources for the article? If so, maybe you could add them to Talk:Sunita_Narain. I'd be very happy to work together towards a co-nomination for GA. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Cynna Kydd

I have nominated Cynna Kydd for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Inactive members list

Our list of project participants continues to grow (yay!), but I've noticed that at this point we have a fair number of members who haven't actually edited Wikipedia for more than a year. For practical purposes (e.g., knowing who to ping or who to invite to WiG events), I think it might be helpful for us to move members who haven't edited in a year or more over to an "inactive members" list, right below active members. If/when editors return to Wikipedia, they can shift their names back to the active members list. Does that sound fair? Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I'd go ahead and do it – if anyone objects they can always revert Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the above. It will help us be realistic about our goals if we know how many participants have been active in the last year. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Updating the 100 desirable list

Do you think we should remove articles from the list once they're promoted to GA and add replacements? Can we still track what is achieved in one year by archiving the ones promoted? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Why Mary, Mother of Jesus is not on the list? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We have previously swapped out GAs from the Hot 100 list, yes. They are archived here. I think the most recent discussion was here, where I came up with a list of candidates based on the first half of the people list from WP:VA4, viz:

• Amelia Earhart
• Celia Cruz
• Estée Lauder (businesswoman)
• Frances Marion
• George Eliot
• Ida Lupino
• Khadija bint Khuwaylid
• Kiri Te Kanawa
• Mary, mother of Jesus
• Meera
• Nadia Boulanger
• Nadine Gordimer
• Nana Mouskouri
• Simone de Beauvoir
• Svetlana Alexievich
• Teresa Teng
• Toni Morrison

Looking further down the list, other candidates include:

• Puduḫepa
• Wu Zetian
• Theodora (wife of Justinian I)
• Margaret I of Denmark
• Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba
• La Malinche
• Empress Dowager Cixi
• Corazon Aquino
• Indira Gandhi
• Gro Harlem Brundtland
• Jane Addams
• Betty Friedan
• Margaret Sanger
• Sojourner Truth

I haven't gone through the final two sections on scientists or sports figures yet. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would swap Virgin MAry and Wu Zeitan with random less important woman, say Queen of Sheba or Grace Kelly (or other if would be consensus to remove someone other). Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Loss of FA & GA lists on Women in Green homepage

@Dr. Blofeld: I see you removed our automatically-updated Featured Article lists from the Women in Green homepage, also (inadvertently?) removing our automatically-generated GA article list in the process. Your edit summary states only that "This is a Good Article project not FA." Can we discuss this? It's true that Good Articles remain the focus of this WikiProject, but in recent years we've also begun working on Featured Articles and Featured Lists (they are now included in our annual goals, under Goal #4). Featured articles are fairly clearly related to the project's goal of improving articles about women and women's works (GA status is the minimum goal, rather than the sole or maximum goal), and the Featured Article spotlight on Wikipedia's main page provides an excellent way of promoting women's topics in history. If other Women in Green members are in support of removing the FA lists from our project's homepage, we can go ahead with that, but I think it should be a collective decision. I've restored the JL-Bot coding for both FA and GA lists until discussion is over. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any benefit in explicitly prohibiting FAs from the scope of the project. Obviously the focus is and will probably be for a while on Gas, but we should certainly display the higher rankings to remind users that there is another level which can be achieved. Aza24 (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Alanna the Brave. Perhaps you could move it to a sub page, I thought it made the main project page look a bit long and bloated. I have no objection to having a focus on FA, but if 20kb of the content on the page is for GA and 156 kb for Featured article lists that doesn't seem right to me. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of that 156kb was actually the list of Good Articles; there are far more GAs than FAs! I agree that the list was getting very long though: when we first implemented the bot-maintained list back in 2019, there were only 287 FAs and 1258 GAs picked up; today there were 446 FAs and 4,346 GAs! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

My mistake I was looking at it on my pad earlier. Can we move the list to a subpage and a link at the bottom?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Shifting that GA/FA content to a subpage sounds reasonable -- the lists are definitely huge and sprawling at this point. I can do that tomorrow (barring any last-minute objections, which I'm not really anticipating). Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually meant to do that initially and tried to cut and paste the section but it was so big I failed to do it on my pad. If I'd been on the PC at the time it would have been done successfully!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I've never tried big edits on a pad -- way too tricky for me! Okay, I've shifted the content to a new subpage (also with tab at top of page for easier access). It certainly makes for less scrolling on the main page, which I like. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Cheers Alanna the Brave, wouldn't recommend trying to copy and paste large chunks of text on a pad or phone!! :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We didn't even have 1000 when this started did we? 4346 articles is amazing progress!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is! I think the numbers are partially due to better labeling/categorizing (more relevant GA articles are now tagged with women-related WikiProjects, so we're counting them more efficiently now), but folks have been doing a lot of fabulous GA work over the past few years. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: A TikToker, ... , other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.

Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.

Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Cathy Whims

Over at Talk:Cathy Whims, I've asked about a possible GA co-nom if any project members are interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ambitious goal proposal

I know it sounds crazy, but I think that the project's 2023 goal should be improving all women-related articles in the Vital articles list to GA. This includes the people list, Woman, Women's suffrage, etc. The Vital articles list is intentionally being skewed towards men, as the list account for the unfortunate fact that men dominate the society at the time. If this proposal is approved, I think that it would make a big impact towards alleviating the gender bias and increasing perceived quality. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, I count only 8 (give or take a couple) articles on WP:VA (which is the 1,000-article long list) which are within this project's scope (plus seven more on women which are already at GA or FA level). Those are:

• Hatshepsut (B)
• Catherine the Great (C)
• Frida Kahlo (B)
• Florence Nightingale (B)
• Woman (C)
• Sexism (C)
• Women's suffrage (B)
• Pregnancy (C)

So this would be concievably doable, I guess. That said, it would be a big project. They are all huge articles (the shortest are Hatshepsut and Woman, each weighing in at nearly 5,000 words; the longest, Women's suffrage, is over 15,000!) The biographical articles don't look to be in too terrible shape at a glance, but I fear that the more general survey articles would need a lot of work. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, it is going to be damn big work. But I believe we can do this given the will. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, in compiling that list I discovered that nearlyover half (79 out of 1517, roughly 4753%) of the women-related articles on the list are GA or better, compared to only a fifth (201/997, almost exactly 20%) of all articles on the list. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [updated numbers because I missed two women FAs Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)]

Well, less work I guess :) Anyways, what do you think is the fastest way to accomplish the goal? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no appetite to work on the listed articles as I have insufficient knowledge of the sort of sources that should be consulted, but I'll cheer on anyone who does improve them. (How about putting the proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles rather than to WikiProject Women in Green? I'm rather suprised to read above that the Vital Articles list is "intentionally being skewed towards men".) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, sorry if I'm coming across as being a sexist with that sentence. I agree that more women should be added to the list. However, what I meant to say is that it is unlikely that we would have a 50-50 mix of men and women, since in the past women are suppressed and are prevented to do great things. That is extremely unfortunate to see, but we shouldn't set the record straight and should instead acknowledge the pervasive discrimination against women in the past at the list. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, CactiStaccingCrane -- I think development of the Vital Article lists has had inherent issues (probably not intentional bias, gender-wise, but problematic nonetheless), as much of it is based on fame or a "first come, first serve" system of article addition. In terms of famous/frequently viewed women's bios, all four women listed above are already included in our "Hot 100" list on the main page (100 women pulled from various tiers of the Vital Articles). If there is enough interest, we could certainly create a goal of bringing a number of Hot 100 bios up to GA status next year. In terms of the more general subject articles (Woman, Sexism, Women's Suffrage, and Pregancy), I think any one of those would be a HUGE endeavour, and it may be that the only practical approach would be to choose one article and team up to improve it across the whole of 2023. :-) Again, however, we would need to assess how many other editors are interested. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. As the list is currently 3 under quota, perhaps we could add more women to the Vital list as well (and I would certainly support it). As for the general subject articles like you've said above, it is going to be difficult, tough, and even brutal. But once you break down the work needed to do to improve them to GA, it just becomes much easier - add more content here, add ref here, add media here, trim this section, etc. I actually think that one of these articles can be improved solely this year, but because our WikiProject is still fairly small and have no GA experience we would like to work on easier articles first. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose and Caeciliusinhorto-public: Done, made a thread at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Add 3 more women. Let's see how it goes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm going to go out on a limb here and state emphatically that I have no interest in working on vital articles. Several years ago, I attempted to work on that list development but no one could give any criteria whatsoever for how articles were selected. It became apparent in short order, that there was no selection criteria, other than the whims of the group of active editors working there. There was also no apparent desire or impetus to expand the coverage on un- or under-represented groups/topics, which left a decided unpleasant impression of the project itself. The fact that Caeciliusinhorto found only 8 articles within our scope, suggests that those problematic factors are still in play. Fame, page-views, et al are not indicative of the import of topics for women. I would far rather focus my efforts on improving the overall coverage of people, things and groups that have been omitted from the encyclopedic record than on working on some random list of topics that someone or some group has deemed to be vital without any criteria for their selection. Perhaps if actual criteria for selection is developed, I could be swayed, but probably not, as the negative experience of the past would be hard to overcome. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you've said. The list sucks. People go circlejerking around with arbitrary criteria and bureaucratic voting, while the articles itself are not getting improved at all. Criteria for inclusion is arbitrary, vitalness is not throughly defined. That's the exact reason I rewamp the WP:WikiProject Vital Articles and get things going, stop unnecessary votes and just do something to improve these articles. I'm literally trying to turn around the project by doing exactly the opposite of the issues that you've raised. Only once you actually make use of the list can you start making progress at removing bias from the list, as just sitting around and vote would do nothing to help you understand why this article is vital/important. I want the list to be less biased and I want all of the underrepresented but important articles to get the coveted GA status. That is the exact reason why I made this thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think everyone who is a member of this project empathizes with a desire to improve article quality or they wouldn't be here. That said, and now I am speaking only for myself, wikidrama and drama boards, endless conversations which do not result in said improvement, are a non-starter for me. I'd far rather spend time making actual improvements and avoiding conflicts, than trying to figure out criteria and convince others to support same. I do wish you luck and hope that your plans bear fruit. I don't want to be negative, but it just seems to me an impossible task, since anyone can edit and the loudest voices always hold sway. SusunW (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Only four women on the Vital articles list? Seriously? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes you want to throw up, doesn't it doc? SusunW (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, so, what three articles should I add to the list then? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

3 more? Needs to be at least a few dozen I would have thought. How many male bios are there? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot. Probably enough swapping to make the Vital regulars angry. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Eeeks! I say we bring this issue up with the Vital regulars then, surely nobody could dispute that 4 or 7 women bios is poor!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually ten: six are already GA or higher (Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, Mary Wollstonecraft, Marie Curie, Emmy Noether, and Murasaki Shikibu), so I didn't list them. All the same, ten out of 112 is pretty poor representation, and as e.g. SusunW points out, the selection criteria are unclear at best – with all due respect to Charlie Chaplin, is he really one of the 112 most important people in human history?! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, time to add a few to the Vital list. Be bold and propose some here! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I and another editor have drawn up a list of suggestions for promotion to Level 3 Vital articles at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The inertia is too strong. Sorry if I've disappointed you guys. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Thank you for speaking up (no apologies necessary). I wanted to post something supportive to your thread in Vital Articles, but I'm afraid I kind of lost my nerve -- I felt like I'd be very quickly dismissed. Keep up your work with the Vital Articles project, and always feel welcome to jump in at Women in Green too. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Increasing level of success

First of all, I'm glad to see the FA problems have been sorted out. I strongly support including FA and FL among the aims of Women in Green. I would nevertheless like to draw attention to two sets of evolving data. The assessment statistics on the main WiG page currently show 987 GA articles under WP Women which indicates that within two or three weeks we should hit 1000. Furthermore, under WP Women's History, today we have exactly 750 GA articles, also a nice round figure. I realize that many of these are promoted without the specific involvement of contributors to WiR but the stats clearly show that interest in the quality of articles about women is increasing. Maybe these successes could be communicated over the social networks with a view to encouraging wider participation. Any ideas in this connection?--Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured and good topic candidates

There are a couple of topics that Project members might be interested in at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates. (The criteria are here). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we want a second GA editathon in 2022?

Hi all -- we had initially considered having two editathon events this year, so I just wanted to ask: would there be sufficient interest in WiG having one more GA editathon in 2022, perhaps in October? What do you think? If there's enough interest, I can start setting that up (maybe under a more general "wildcard" theme this time), but there's no pressure -- we can always just cruise through to the end of year on our own time, too. We've already achieved three out of our four group goals for 2022, which is pretty amazing. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t been anywhere near as active as I would have liked, but I would try and contribute to an editathon -Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy to participate. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I think another editathon in October could be really productive. I've been looking at all the recent adjustments to the Hot 100 list. I was wondering whether it might be useful to draw up a sublist of these, say about 20, which have a realistic chance of being brought up to GA standard. By that I mean those which would not require enormous efforts but are nevertheless significant.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Hmm -- drawing up a sublist of "easier" Hot 100 GAs is an interesting idea, but it might be best left until our end-of-year discussions about 2023 goals. If we're going to put more energy into tackling those articles, we'll need to assess how many folks are genuinely interested in working on them (and what kind of support they might want). Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty -- feels like enough interest. I'll pull together a new event page this weekend. :-) @BennyOnTheLoose: Are you up for being on standby for the 20-minute mini-reviews again? Probably won't be a giant uptake, but still a nice support to have for newer editors. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You can put me on standby, if interested/needed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, happy to help with mini-reviews. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Eddie891 and BennyOnTheLoose! I'll list you both on the mini-review team for October. You can add the 20-minute assessment requests page to your watchlist (this should be the permanent requests page going forward -- no more new request pages for every new editathon). Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Marie Yates, Fine arts

Marie Yates UK fine artist.

There seems some help request (likely subject itself see 1) @ Talk:Marie Yates. If subject them selves writing then likely to be senior citizen and so may be request is not as much clear. The request seems to have been again repeated 2 @ WP:BLPN .

May be some one can help them.

Bookku (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

October GA editathon is open for sign-ups!

Hi all -- just wanted to announce that the page for our upcoming October GA editathon event is now up and running. It's a "Wildcard Edition" theme this time, open to articles about any and all women and women's works. Please feel free to invite other editors you think might be interested: the invite template is here. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I am an inexperienced editor and have just added my name to the October list for turning articles about women into GAs. I would like help in turning the page about USA environmentalist Carol Van Strum into a good article. It was the first page I wrote. Do I wait until October to start? Anybody willing to help me? Thanks if you can! Balance person (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Balance person: Hello, and welcome! I'm glad to see you've added your name to the members list for WikiProject Women in Green. If you'd like to participate in our October editathon event, you should sign up on the event page too. You should also check out the event rules, instructions and resources for GA nominators (turning an article into a Good Article). Carol Van Strum looks like a neat article! You can definitely start your initial work now, but you'll have to wait until October to finish up and nominate the article for GA status. One resource that you may be interested in is our 20-minute assessments or "mini-reviews" -- from October 1 to 30, you may request a mini-review of your chosen project, and an experienced Women in Green editor will take a look and give you suggestions for how to improve your article further. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Alanna the Brave! I think I have added my name to the event page and also requested a mini-review, a little early but I saw that others had listed already. Thanks for your warm welcome. I have a lot to learn and a supportive atmosphere really helps! Balance person (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Anne Askew - article needing substantive work

Hello! Long time lurker here, as I mostly work over on Women in Red. I thought I'd do five minutes of copy-editing tonight and wikipedia suggested I look at Anne Askew. It reads/read like someone copy/pasted in a thesis, and did some strange things to the footnotes/references. I've now spent 40 minutes on it trying to solve the most egregious section but I feel like the whole of it needs reworking. How do I go about making that happen? Is this something for this group or is there another project I could try? EEHalli (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Judging by the edit history, the issue is mostly just that it's quite an old article that has been worked on piecemeal over time. As for "making it happen", if you want to adopt the article, it looks like it's all yours! It hasn't had a substantial edit since 2020. -- asilvering (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors with an inclination toward anthropology?

The redoubtable SusunW and myself have ambitions of taking Theodora Kroeber to FAC; if there's any anthropologically-inclined editors here who would be willing to have a look at it beforehand, any feedback would be much appreciated! Vanamonde (Talk) 04:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Final few "Women and the Environment" GA nominations needed for 2022

Hi all -- We've blasted through most of our group goals for 2022, but we still need five more "Women and the Environment" GA nominations to meet Goal #1 (and only one month left to do it). Anyone interested in taking an article on? A few suggestions: Severn Cullis-Suzuki, Lady Eve Balfour, Mary J. Rathbun, or Rosa Grena Kliass. I'll try to tackle one over the next few weeks. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Requesting review of deleted content

(Sorry for cross posting) This edit seem to delete student generated sourced content from the article Male gaze as part of their academic project. It's understandable that being newbies their content may not be perfect but academic student community has made substantial contributions to women related topics over the years specially in non biography areas and I suggest review of said deletion, by women related wp projects and previous article contributors, to find if any supportive action may help rescue any suitable content rather than just blanket deletion. (Discussion link @ the article talk) Bookku (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Next year?

With only just over a fortnight until the new year, and most of our objectives for the year handily achieved (we're still at 15/20 for the thematic target, which is one less than the 16 nominations we managed for last year's theme of women's rights, but 44 general noms, 43 reviews, and 8 Featured Articles/Lists make this our most prolific year yet), I thought we should start to consider next year. Last year we stole borrowed our theme from Women in Red, who are doing Peace and Diplomacy next year; are people happy with that? And do our target numbers of 20 theme GAs, 30 misc GAs, 25 GA reviews, and 5 Featured Content noms from this year still sound reasonable? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Caeciliusinhorto-public! The theme of peace and diplomacy sounds fine to me. Given the numbers from this year, I think it would be reasonable to increase our targets for "wildcard" GA noms and GA reviews (to 40 each?). I'm also pondering a possible new goal: peer review/FAC reviews. It strikes me that many editors struggle to get enough feedback for their peer review and FA article candidates, and it would be helpful to support articles this way. We could perhaps make it a more directly collaborative goal -- aim to have at least 15 peer review or FAC articles receive comments from at least 2-3 editors each (after the first editor provides comments and adds the article to the list, there would be space left for other editors to jump in and add their name). Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: I've started next year's goals page here, updating the numbers to your suggestions and writing up a quick draft goal for collaborative reviews – do tweak anything that doesn't look right! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I've been under the weather and it's been a tough couple of weeks, so sorry for not responding earlier. I think the problem with climate as a topic was that it is a fairly recent development (20th century), which makes it difficult to find subjects with adequate sourcing (or in my case, those who aren't living). Peace activists and pacifists as well as diplomacy have a much longer history and should afford us more opportunities to meet our target, IMO. I also like the idea of encouraging participation in peer reviews and FA reviews. I appreciate both of you working on the 2023 goals. SusunW (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hope things improve for you SusunW! I've been "enjoying" an evil cold here. The plans sound good although to be honest I'll probably follow my own path as usual (right now it's Phoolan Devi). I agree that encouraging participation at peer review and FAC is a great idea. Cheers and best of luck to everyone for 2023! Mujinga (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Breathe in for the picture

Cool article Mujinga. I've been working on one more nominee, just waiting to see if we can nail down an image of her husband. Finally feeling better and I hope you have a speedy recovery. Hope everyone has a lovely holiday season. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hope you both feel better soon! I agree with SusunW that the limited history of environmental activism was a difficulty – I'm not sure a suitable article in my usual time period existed even if I wanted to work on it! For peace and diplomacy there is one obvious article in my usual subject area, though I may just keep chipping away at the lyric poets with no regard for our theme as is my usual wont... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Caeciliusinhorto. 3 sentences in to "the obvious choice" and I am laughing until I see that it makes the situation worse. A fascinating read nonetheless. Not remotely my area of expertise, 18th-19th century women, an era where pacifism loomed large. SusunW (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I also had to laugh Caeciliusinhorto! That article does need work ... in other news SusunW the size of Elizabeth Speranskaya waist in that gorgeous image!!? Mujinga (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This season's trend is... not having internal organs? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

LOL, I know Mujinga, and absolutely Caeciliusinhorto! The things women have done in the name of fashion. It is no wonder she had so many health problems. SMDH SusunW (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: The page looks great! I've tweaked/expanded the description of Goal 5 for clarity -- let me know what you think. I'm guessing it's best to list articles there only once "reviewer 1" has contributed review comments (this should get the ball rolling a bit quicker). Folks can always post to our talk page if they want to suggest their article for peer review or FAC comments. SusunW & Mujinga, feel better soon! I hope you both get lots of rest over the holiday season. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting Peer Review for Rosalie Slaughter Morton

I've had a Peer Review request open for Rosalie Slaughter Morton for a few months now - if anyone has time to give some input on how far this article is from Featured Article status it would be greatly appreciated! Sam Walton (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting input on Hatshepsut

A Level 3 vital article and an important biography on ancient Egypt and women's roles and history in this part of the ancient world. Additionally, any reviews re promoting this article to Good Article status would also be very much appreciated. Gingermead (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Some quick comments based on only glancing over the article – I haven't read through it properly – if you are interested in getting it to GA status:

• I see several paragraphs which do not have a citation at the end; as a general rule when you are nominating an article for GA status you will be expected to have every paragraph end with a reference.
• Conversely, there are a lot of citations in the lead. As a reviewer, this makes me worry that they are claims which do not otherwise appear in the article, in violation of WP:LEAD. (If everything in the lead is properly cited in the body of the article, then per WP:LEADCITE you probably don't need the cites in the lead)
• A section called "Tyldesly hypothesis", cited purely to Joyce Tyldesly herself, raises red flags about whether WP:DUE is being followed.
• The "in popular culture" section looks like a mess of random things that mention her; I think every article with an "in popular culture" section can be improved by trying to write a coherent prose discussion of reception, rather than just listing a bunch of things. At minimum, it helps to explain to the reader why all the items are listed: is Child of the Morning, for example, a novel about Hatshepsut? If so, say so!
• I see at least a couple of sources that I would be questioning if I were reviewing the article for GA. World History Encyclopedia I do not think is reliable. Why is makingqueerhistory.com reliable?

Hope this is somewhat helpful Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: wow, I wasn't expecting a response that quickly, thanks! I've made a few edits to the article addressing this (As I don't know much about the popular culture, I removed this section as it seemed a little arbritrary and difficult to integrate into the main article).

I will be trying to give it more of a thorough look when I have chance but just wanted to know that I really appreciate this comment and any others you may have. Gingermead (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Lessons for Children

I have nominated Lessons for Children for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles of GA quality without a nominator

What's the correct approach for a high quality article that doesn't have anyone to nominate it for GA? I'm asking here because there are a few US first lady articles that I think meet the GA criteria but don't have anyone to nominate them: Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Nancy Reagan, and Hillary Clinton. The former is on this wikiproject's Hot 100, and the latter two are demoted Featured Articles that need to be renominated for GA. I contacted the nominator of the latter two, but they were not interested in renominating. I'm working to get all of the first ladies to Good Topic status, so this something I'll need to surmount. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The GA instructions say that nominators who are not significant contributors to the article must consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. If none of the regular editors want to nominate, and you are willing to do the work to shepherd it through the nominations process, I imagine in most cases they wouldn't object to you spearheading the nomination. If you think the article is ready, I'd just stick a note on the talkpage saying "I'd like to nominate this for GA; does anyone object?" and if you don't get a response in a couple of weeks just nominate it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 Be bold! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mass GA delisting of articles by User Doug Coldwell

copied from WIR talk

During my reviewing of unassessed articles tagged WikiProject Women and WikiProject Women's History, I have today come across a considerable number of those created by Doug Coldwell which had lost their GA quality assessment. On looking into the reason for this, I discovered that Coldwell was first blocked following a warning on his user page by Fram on 8 September 2022. This led to blocking for disruptive edits on 24 October 2022. On 30 January 2023, he was indefinitely banned as a sock puppet and was refused access to his talk page. Unfortunately, despite successive attempts by Dr. Blofeld and others to encourage Coldwell to respond specifically to the reasons why he had been blocked (essentially for copyright problems) he was not prepared to do so but (on the basis of his talk page comments) he was ready to revise any GA article for which specific problems could be presented. This offer was not accepted. As a result, all the 200 or so GAs he has created over the years are now being delisted. The Women's History articles which were delisted on 25/26 February include Elizabeth Timothy, Cone sisters, Effie Maud Aldrich Morrison, Jane Aitken, Eugenia Tucker Fitzgerald, Gertrude Hull, Caroline Reboux, Eleonora de Cisneros and Elizabeth Plankinton. This is just the first batch as there are several other women's biographies on the remaining list of Coldwell's GAs. As several members of Women in Red have been involved in the improvement or the GA assessemt of Coldwell's articles, it might be possible to restore their GA status. Although I don't usually work much on articles about Americans, I've looked through a few of these and they certainly appear to deserve promotion, perhaps after more careful checking of any copyright problems.--Ipigott (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

At least one of these was tagged Women in Green.--Ipigott (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That is most unfortunate Ipigott. Surely they couldn't have reviewed every article delisted? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There was a community decision to delist all of his articles because, for basically all of those that were checked, there were not only copyvio problems, but also a lot of cases where the references did not contain the content used in the articles. Sometimes rather egregiously so. And with a lot of the references being offline sources, that made it that much more difficult to double check. So the community decided to delist all of them and allow nominations for relisting by other editors once every reference had been properly checked in an article. Silverseren^C 18:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Further delistings include Mary Myers (edited by Alanna the Brave), Mary F. Hoyt, Ruth M. Gardiner, Virginia Mae Brown, Lilly Daché, Marianne Means, Juliana R. Force and Mary Florence Potts. Also Linda Finch--Ipigott (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I saw a notice about this on my talk page earlier this month (I was reviewer for three of Doug's articles), but unfortunately I had too much off-Wiki work on my plate to go through the independent GAR process that was being requested to (potentially) prevent articles from being delisted. I do think at least some of the delisted articles could be brought back up to GA status with a bit of checking/polishing. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave: It seems unfortunate to me that you were given so little time to check things out. I'm sure quite a few of them really did not deserve to lose their GA rating. Take the last one I added this morning, Linda Finch, an aviator. DC did very little work on it apart from nominating it for GA. Unfortunately, the other significant contributor Aussie Article Writer has also been indefinitely blocked! Nevertheless, as nearly all the citations link to the web, it shouldn't be too difficult to check for any copyright problems and reprocess for GA. If you have any members interested in aviators, it may be worth a go.--Ipigott (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Madame LaQueer

I've nominated Madame LaQueer for GA status, if any project members are interested in reviewing or otherwise improving. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

FAC nomination

Hö'elün, an article I got to GA status as part of the Around the World editathon last year, is now at FAC. Any comments are welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

First female president

Hello. I want to bring to your attention the articles Khertek Anchimaa-Toka (first non-royal female head of state) and Vigdís Finnbogadóttir (first elected female president). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've actually been eyeing Vigdís as a possible entry in the current Editathon. Maybe I'll go ahead and get started on that one, once I've finished with the others I'm working on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about image licensing

I have reviewed the article Seraphina Sforza and seconds before passing, I noticed that the licensing template of this image commons:File:SforzaSerafina.JPG had some missing parameters. The source website does no longer exist (or was spelled incorrectly), so I'm not sure how to find out when the scan/photo was made and where the website was published, which are needed for those missing parameters. Can anyone advise me on what to do? – Editør (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Editør: Have you asked around at the WP Commons Village Pump? I've had good responses to licensing/copyright questions there in the past. If you can't find a satisfactory solution, I would recommend simply asking the GA nominator to remove the image for now (it can always be re-added in future once the licensing is sorted out). Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I will consider it. I've asked here first, since both nominator and reviewer are contributing to the October event. – Editør (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Editør: I tried using the Wayback Machine to search for earlier versions of "santibeati.com", and couldn't find anything, but there is a "santiebeati.it", which may or may not be the source for the image (or another version of the original site). You could also reach out to the image uploader on Commons, on the off chance they're able to shed more light on it. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've posted my question here as you suggested. – Editør (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The nominator decided to replace the image, so this is no longer an obstacle for the GA review. – Editør (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)