Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Women in archaeology task force

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Professor Dorothy Garrod (1892–1968), pioneering prehistoric archaeologist and the first woman to hold an Oxbridge chair

The women in archaeology task force of WikiProject Archaeology aims to counter Wikipedia's systematic bias by improving its coverage of female archaeologists and women-related topics in archaeology.

Participants

[edit]

Scope

[edit]
Main category: Women in archaeology articles

The scope of the task force is, primarily, biographies of female archaeologists (see Category:Women archaeologists), but also other topics broadly related to women in archaeology (e.g. Feminist archaeology, Women in ancient Rome).

Categorisation & tagging

[edit]

The task force's project category is Category:Women in archaeology articles which is automatically populated with all articles that:

  1. Have been tagged with {{WikiProject Archaeology}} on their talk pages
  2. Have the women=yes parameter set on the above template

This category is used for the task force's tracking and metrics, so all articles in its scope should be tagged this way.

Category:Women archaeologists is the task force's main feeder category. All biographies of female archaeologists should be added to this category, and it should be periodically checked for new entries that need to be tagged.

Milestones & metrics

[edit]

Redlist

[edit]

When the task force was created in August 2016, there were 106 entries on the WikiProject Women in Red Archaeology Redlist. This milestone tracks progress in turning all of them blue, by creating articles or stubs on notable female archaeologists.

There is also a longer, bot-maintained red list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Archaeologists.

Please list newly created articles here—including articles expanded from a stub—with their author, creation date and DYK credit if applicable. This helps us document the impact of the task force.

  1. 2016
  2. Crystal Bennett, by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 23 April 2016
  3. Lucy Allen Smart, by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 31 July 2016
  4. Margaret Ursula Jones, by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 5 August 2016
  5. Margarida Davina Andreatta, by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 31 December 2016
  6. Jeanne Marie Thérèse Vandier d'Abbadie by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 31 December 2016
  7. Elise Jenny Baumgartel by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 31 December 2016
    2017
  8. Dorothy Lamb by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 21 February 2017
  9. Tania Ghirshman by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 27 February 2017
  10. Helen Waterhouse by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 16 March 2017
  11. Ida Hill by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 9 April 2017
  12. Elizabeth Blegen by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 11 April 2017
  13. Myrtle Florence Broome by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 14 April 2017
  14. Alice Leslie Walker by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 15 April 2017
  15. Eunice Stebbins by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 19 April 2017
  16. Marion Rawson by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 29 April 2017
  17. Cleo Rickman Fitch by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 30 April 2017
  18. Tatiana Warsher by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 26 June 2017
  19. Charlotte Blindheim by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2017
  20. Charmian Woodfield by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 14 July 2017
  21. Elfriede Knauer by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 20 July 2017
  22. Elen Feuerriegel by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 11 August 2017
  23. Elinor Mullett Husselman by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 11 September 2017
  24. Lindsay Allason-Jones by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 10 October 2017
  25. Alia Gurtov by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 30 November 2017
  26. Becca Peixotto by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 8 December 2017
  27. Hannah Morris (anthropologist) by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 12 December 2017
  28. Marina Elliott by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 16 December 2017
  29. Sharon Stocker by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 27 December 2017
  30. Whitney Battle-Baptiste by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 28 December 2017
  31. Julie K. Stein by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 31 December 2017
    2018
  32. Shahina Farid by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 3 January 2018
  33. Irina Rusanova by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 4 January 2018
  34. Alice Stevenson (archaeologist) by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 4 January 2018
  35. Yusra (archaeologist) by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 4 January 2018
  36. Carol Palmer by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 5 January 2018
  37. Alex Bayliss by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 7 January 2018
  38. Mary Beaudry by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 24 January 2018
  39. Rachel J. Watkins by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 3 February 2018
  40. Catherine Johns by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 15 February 2018
  41. Ellen Swift by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 24 February 2018
  42. Ufuk Esin by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 24 February 2018
  43. Birgitta Wallace by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 16 March 2018
  44. E. C. L. During Caspers by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 02 April 2018
  45. Claireve Grandjouan by PamD (talk · contribs) on 02 April 2018
  46. Anna Maria Bisi by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · contribs) on 03 April 2018
  47. Kathleen K. Gilmore by SusunW (talk · contribs) on 02 April 2018
  48. Kathleen A. Deagan by SusunW (talk · contribs) on 10 April 2018
  49. Hella Eckardt by Richard Nevell on 22 May 2018
  50. Alexandra Jones by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 27 May 2018
  51. Ann B. Stahl by Ninafundisha (talk · contribs) on 29 May 2018
  52. Melinda A. Zeder by Ninafundisha (talk · contribs) on 30 May 2018
  53. Henriette Groenewegen-Frankfort by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 1 June 2018
  54. Maria Ludwika Bernhard by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 6 June 2018
  55. Barbara Ruszczyc by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 9 June 2018
  56. Elizabeth Augustus Whitehead by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 11 June 2018
  57. Margaret E. Thompson by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 11 June 2018
  58. Elizabeth Baldwin Garland by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 11 June 2018
  59. Beatrice Laura Goff by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 14 June 2018
  60. Christina Warinner by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 22 June 2018
  61. Sally McBrearty by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) on 26 June 2018
  62. Sue O'Connor by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 27 June 2018
  63. Anna Apostolaki by SusunW (talk · contribs) on 4 July 2018
  64. Susan Oosthuizen by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 4 October 2018
  65. Women in archaeology by Joe Roe (talk · contribs), SusunW (talk · contribs) & MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 9 October 2018
  66. Alice Walton (classicist) by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 10 November 2018
  67. Jennifer Price by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 22 November 2018
  68. Sarah Tarlow by MauraWen (talk · contribs) on 28 November 2018
  69. Caitlin E. Buck by Joe Roe on 3 December 2018
    2019
  70. Angela von den Driesch by Joe Roe on 12 January 2019
  71. Lamia Al-Gailani Werr by Joe Roe on 23 January 2019
  72. Katherine Dunbabin by Richard Nevell on 21 February 2020
  73. Hannah Russ by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 28 February 2019
  74. Jessie Mothersole by Zakhx150 (talk · contribs) on 8 March 2019
  75. Dana Lepofsky by Joe Roe on 10 March 2019
  76. Kirsten Bos by MauraWen on 20 March 2019
  77. Erla Bergendahl Hohler by Zakhx150 on 21 June 2019
  78. Carol van Driel-Murray by Richard Nevell on 28 June 2019
  79. Nicola Rogers by Zakhx150 on 23 September 2019
  80. Tania Dickinson by Zakhx150 on 9 October 2019
  81. Ailsa Mainman by Zakhx150 on 14 October 2019
  82. Elizabeth Schofield by Zakhx150 on 15 October 2019
  83. Helen Farr by Zakhx150 on 23 October 2019
  84. Vera Leisner by Roundtheworld (talk · contribs) on 29 October 2019
  85. Joan J. Taylor by Joe Roe on 29 October 2019
  86. Susan Kruse Zakhx150 (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Anna Belfer-Cohen by Joe Roe on 18 November 2019
  88. Elizabeth Pirie
  89. Galina Pugachenkova
  90. Vera Bulatova
  91. Dawn Hadley
  92. Timpoko Helène Kienon-Kabore
  93. Rose Ferraby
  94. Nacéra Benseddik
  95. Stephanie Wynne-Jones
    2020
  96. Mary Lewis (archaeologist) Richard Nevell on 22 January 2020
  97. Germaine Perrin de la Boullaye Zakhx150 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Winifred M. Crompton by Joe Roe on 9 March 2020
  99. Marion Stirling Pugh on 14 May 2020
  100. Aino Kann Rasmussen by Joe Roe on 29 May 2020
  101. Nina Crummy by RomanColchester on 11 June 2020
  102. Olena Vasylivna Tsvek by Joe Roe on 8 July 2020
  103. Angèle Dola Akofa Aguigah
  104. Branka Raunig
  105. Zdenka Nemeškalová-Jiroudková
  106. Maria Millington Lathbury
  107. Hripsime Djanpoladjian
  108. Mónica Aguilar Bonilla
  109. Michelle Alexander (archaeologist)
  110. Penny Bickle
  111. Emanuela Nohejlová-Prátová
  112. Solange Macamo
  113. Jocelyn Orchard by Joe Roe on 5 August 2020
  114. Aleksandra McClain by Richard Nevell on 28 October 2020
  115. Ethel Rudkin by Lajmmoore (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Gail Falkingham by Zakhx150 (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Valentine Roux by Joe Roe on 18 November 2020
  118. Gabrielle Démians d'Archimbaud by Zakhx150 on 19 November 2020
  119. Jean Le Patourel by Lajmmoore on 22 November 2020
  120. Sarah Scott by Zakhx150 on 27 November 2020
  121. Charlotte Fränkel by Zakhx150 on 14 December 2020
  122. Tomris Bakır by Lajmmoore (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2021
  123. Paula Reimer
  124. Penelope Dransart by Richard Nevell on 21 March 2021
  125. Nthabiseng Mokoena (archaeologist), by Lajmmoore (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Emma Mbua, by Lajmmoore (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Chantal Radimilahy, by Lajmmoore (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Malika Hachid, by Lajmmoore (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Cajsa S. Lund, by Lajmmoore (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Tarisi Vunidilo, by Lajmmoore (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Sara Perry (archaeologist) Zakhx150 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Tiina Manne Zakhx150 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Naomi Payne Zakhx150 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Pamela Marshall (archaeologist) by Richard Nevell on 19 May 2021
  135. Elena Abramovna Davidovich by Lajmmoore (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Cecil Curle by Zakhx150 (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Sarah Speight by Richard Nevell on 2 August 2021
  138. Borka Dragojević-Josifovska by Lajmmoore (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Dorothea Menadier by Lajmmoore (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Jodie Lewis by Richard Nevell on 18 August 2021
  141. Helen Loney by Richard Nevell on 21 August 2021
  142. Josephine Platner Shear by Lajmmoore (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Phoebe Keef by Richard Nevell on 31 August 2021
  144. Catherine Downes by lajmmoore
  145. Rachel Swallow by Richard Nevell on 3 October 2021
  146. Nanno Marinatos by Eritha on 5 October 2021
  147. Freda Nkirote by Lajmmoore (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Kate Clark (archaeologist) by Richard Nevell on 27 October 2021
    2022
  149. Shpresa Gjongecaj by Lajmmoore (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Nada Miletić by Lajmmoore on 20 January 2022
  151. Eve MacDonald by Richard Nevell on 23 May 2022
  152. Katherine Hodgson (archaeologist) by AAelianaEditor on 6 June 2022
  153. Klára Póczy by Lajmmoore on 8 June 2022
  154. Rosa Norström by Lajmmoore on 21 June 2022
  155. Frances Lynch by Richard Nevell on 23 October 2022
  156. Dorothy B. Waage by Lajmmoore on 22 November 2022
  157. Judith Marquet-Krause by Lajmmoore (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Christine E. Morris by Lajmmoore (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2023
  159. Sarah Jennings (archaeologist) by Richard Nevell on 23 January 2023
  160. Dorota Malarczyk Lajmmoore (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Antonija Vilcāne by Lajmmoore (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Laima Vaitkunskienė by Lajmmoore (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Tatjana Bregant by Lajmmoore (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Kayt Hawkins by Zakhx150 (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Eva Kolníková by Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Vera Hatz by Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Ulla Westermark by Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Rebeca Carrión Cachot by Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Yordanka Youroukova by Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2024
  170. Margaret Birley by Eritha (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Camilla Dickson by Eritha (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Gay van der Meer by Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Malekeh Malekzadeh Bayani by Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Ursula Kampmann by Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Mary Harfield by Lajmmoore (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Birthe Kjølbye-Biddle by Joe Roe on 25 July 2024
  177. Betty Baume Clark Zakhx150 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Frances Griffith by Richard Nevell (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]
Assess these!

1,137

Grading scheme
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of literary movements

Quality

[edit]
Women in archaeology pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 2
GA 16
B 73
C 284
Start 602
Stub 129
Category 25
Project 1
Template 1
NA 2
Assessed 1,135
Total 1,135
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 5,171 Ω = 4.68

Index · Statistics · Log

Stub expansion

[edit]

Stubs are better than nothing, but not good enough!

B-Class or above

[edit]

According to the Version 1.0 assessment criteria, B-class articles are "mostly complete" and "without any major problem" – eventually we should be able to get all articles up to this standard.

Good articles

[edit]

More prominent figures and women in archaeology-related topics should be targeted for Good Article or Featured Article status. Note that both these classes require a formal review process; "A-Class" articles are of similar quality, but can be assessed as such by any member of the WikiProject. Any A-Class articles should be nominated for GA or FA.

Articles with GA potential
[edit]
Articles with FA potential
[edit]

Recognised content

[edit]

(Generated by JL-bot)

The project should aim to get as much recognition for women in archaeology-related articles as possible.

[edit]
Good articles
[edit]
Former good articles
[edit]
Did you know? articles
[edit]
In the News articles
[edit]
Main page featured articles
[edit]

Resources

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Archaeology/Women_in_archaeology_task_force&oldid=1253540745"