Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Pl. Can someone guide me how to edit in French in French Wikipedia?

[Humor]

I hope many of us might have heard about women's protests in France. For journalists and encyclopedists nothing surprising, at least every two weeks we can find a women's rights topic to take note about. Even months before French women went on ongoing protest I had complained @ WT:WIRED that the article on France only boasts ".France is one of the world leaders of gender equality.. it does not speak of the problem areas, and I suggested to audit all of Countries article pages one by one to see how much note they take about women's issues. Though as usual WT:WIRED largely ignored/ one may say played down my suggestion aka rant, IDK if French women took a clue from my rant @ WP:WiR and organized ongoing protests.( Anyways I got 'I said so' opportunity, so I have started believing in my abilities more:) ). French male Wikipedians and may be politicians too can very well take exception that it might have been Wikipedian incited protest:) so it would not be neutral to take note of Women's rights issues in France in the article France. If they find awkward to find arguments to say no then we can provide ready made ones from I was recently confronted with at one discussion page.:

It's a much large paragraph so shortened as much possible: "...Verifiability is not sufficient for inclusion. The question is what objective criterion in term of sources and beyond verifiability should we use to establish relevance. Logical relevance would be way too inclusive. One out of six women is victim of rape in the United States is certainly logically relevant to the subject of the United States and verifiable in official statistics.... The problem is that, based on logical relevance, the entire subject of rape should be covered in details in the United States article. Where do we stop, assuming that we should start at all?... It is a very simple question that we ask here. .." ( Ref not given to avoid charges of 'forum shopping' which my rants can't avoid anyways :))

Now some readers still would have legitimate doubt that clue for protests in France was taken from Wikipedia's women related projects and specially my posts then wait, it is just weeks back at this talk page itself I had requested inputs to improve the article 'Women's shelter'. Largely editors over here might have ignored it, but French women protesters have taken topic of additional budgets for Women's shelter on priority. So now I am pretty convinced, though I am being largely ignored over here at en WP talk pages, French seem to be taking clues from my suggestions here. :) So may be it's time for me to take classes in French language and join French Wikipedia. Any one there to guide me how to edit in French in French Wikipedia? pl. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookku (talk • contribs)

Happy International Women's Day!

Happy International Women's Day! I thought today might be a good space for a WiG check in. How are things going for you in your part of the world? What have you been working on? I haven't had the capacity for a lot of editing recently (too much to do, not enough sleep), but I'm starting to think ahead for our first GA editathon event of 2023 -- the month of May might be a possibility, if that works for enough folks. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, I've been recovering from a broken arm and surgery, which has put the brakes on everything somewhat. I don't think I've worked on an article for this project since Caroline Flack over 18 months ago. The real problem is a lack of book sources to be able to cover a subject sufficiently to GA (which is what has stopped me with Christine McVie) and a further problem from the articles I have written is making sure they're kept up to date and in reasonable shape. I am still contributing to Women in Red from time to time, and I've said before, working on these articles is something I should do rather tinkering away at London transport articles which I find easier to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Sorry to hear about the broken arm! Ouch. :-( When you say the lack of book sources is an issue, do you mean overall lack of sources or lack of access to existing sources? If access is a problem, maybe one of the things WiG could work on this year is strengthening our collective resource-sharing capacity (I know we all have slightly different access to different things). Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Happy International Women's Day to you too, Alanna the Brave. Been there with the broken arm Ritchie333, wishing you a decent rehab. (Mine took about 18 months until I got full range of motion, however, I was 1) over 50 when I broke it and 2) living in a place where there was no such thing as a physical therapist.) As the Goal Tracking shows, I am finding these peace activists fascinating. Have worked my way through Austria and Italy. Not sure where I am going now, but I'm on the trail. I am also trying to review things still open from 2022, but reviewing is much harder for me than researching and writing. May or June works for me. SusunW (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
It's specifically access to the sources. In the case of Christine McVie, there are several Fleetwood Mac biographies around, but the problem is finding which ones are actually good for encyclopedic content, and which should be avoided like the plague as tabloidesque journalism. It is telling that once I've got a couple of good books on a topic, I can churn out a whole bunch of GAs using them (such as the glut of electromechanical musical instrument GAs I've written over the last few years). I'm happy to do the odd GA review; the problem is inevitably I don't know as much on the topic as the nominator does, and so it takes a while to wade through the article ensuring it's factually accurate, or at least appears to be.
Thanks for the comments about the arm, it is getting better but it's not fully healed yet. I can type with both hands at full speed now, which at least means I can crack on with things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be in much better state than I was Ritchie333. For weeks I couldn't pick up an empty plastic salt shaker. Went from that to incrementally filling it and finally bottles of sand. It took months of pinching clothespins to get finger flexibility back. That was when we decided we needed to move back to civilization and up to Mexico, where they have decent health services. And 100% agree, sourcing is almost always the obstacle. SusunW (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

First ladies of the United States

I've created a page at User:Thebiguglyalien/First ladies of the United States to track the progress of the U.S. first lady articles, with the goal of getting them all to good article status. I encourage anyone interested in this to look at it and see if there are any articles they'd consider improving. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Great goal! Good luck ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

WiR Talk re: Hafsat Abiola

Please see discussion on WiR Talk re: Hafsat Abiola, which may be an article that is of interest to this project as well. (Idem Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, also mentioned in same.) Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Volunteers for next GA editathon (May or June)?

Hi all -- I'm putting out a quick call for volunteers to help with our next GA editathon (happening either May or June, depending when folks are free). I can set up the necessary pages and event templates, but I'm looking for (1) help with event promotion, such as mailouts and community bulletin board posts, and (2) some experienced GA reviewers to monitor our 20-Minute Assessment/Mini-review requests. Please let me know if you're interested (and whether May or June is better for you!). Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not technically oriented and have no idea how to do a community or mailout post. I also don't have the ability to do a short review (they take me hours and hours). But that said, I'm happy to coordinate promo with Women in Red if that helps. Let me know when and I can get it on WIR's monthly editathon invite. Either month works for me, but so that we have time to coordinate with other projects, June is probably better. SusunW (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Susun! It's true, June would probably make for a less rushed prep time. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to help out with the 20-minute reviews. Either May ot June should be fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Also happy to do minireviews - May/June are much of a muchness for me, I'll be mostly around. Mujinga (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Fabulous -- thanks Mujinga and BennyOnTheLoose! Let's say June, then. I'll be in touch with more details over the next few weeks (and if anyone else also wants to volunteer to help out, they're welcome to comment here too). Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Grace Hartigan

Hi WiG, I have spent some time trying to clean up the Grace Hartigan article. Y'all did such a wonderful job with Joan Mitchell, I thought maybe I could tempt the group to elevate another important Abstract Expressionist. Thanks to anyone who takes a look!. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Finding GA nominations about women

I was coming here to ask if anyone knew a way to filter GA noms to show women, but then I found that User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting does this. I can't link directly but if you click on "Women" in the contents between "Biography" and "Media", it takes you to a nicely organised list. Mujinga (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I love, love, love that you found that! I sooooo wish that the GA topics were better. As we've discussed, it is often difficult to place women in a single area of expertise. I mean like why do we have tons of topics dealing specifically about entertainment of various types, but I struggle to figure out where to put an activist. This year our focus is on pacifists, so what, pray tell do you do with them? We have "Military and War" (um no, just no, opposites while related are not the same), "Politics" (well, their actions were political, but no they weren't elected to office, so no), leaving the only choice "Social sciences and society". I find it quite frustrating. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Haha! Actually that is pretty funny we have "Warfare" broken into Armies and military units / Battles, exercises, and conflicts / Military aircraft / Military decorations and memorials / Military people / Warships and naval units / Weapons, equipment, and buildings but no section on peace! Says it all really :) I do agree on the topics being suboptimal, my "Squatting in X" articles live at Social sciences and society > Culture, sociology, and psychology > Culture and cultural studies which doesn't seem very logical at all. "Social sciences and society" becomes this weird catch-all category ... as you probably saw I was a bit baffled where to put Helene Lecher. Mujinga (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh I totally get it Mujinga I mean, like what do you do with someone like Enrichetta Chiaraviglio-Giolitti. She advocated for education, but wasn't a teacher or an academic. It's insane that the cultural and social activities women were allowed to do get lumped into a giant catch-all, but "predominantly-male" activities have multiple subdivisions. Ugh! Perhaps with the new GA coordinators something can be done? SusunW (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
You can also use the Women in Green article alerts page to find GA and FA nominations of women – though there's no indication of what topic the article might be under. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
that's handy, thanks! Mujinga (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Mary: A Fiction

I have nominated Mary: A Fiction 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) 02:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

June GA editathon event is now open for sign-ups

Hey everyone! I've finished pulling together our June 2023 GA Editathon event page. I've gone with another "Wildcard Edition" (theme of any/all articles about women and women's works). It's open for sign-ups now -- feel free to invite others who may be interested. @SusunW: Can you add this to the WiR newsletter lineup? @Mujinga and BennyOnTheLoose: Mini-review requests will appear on our usual requests page, which you can bookmark for easy notifications (I'll "open" that page officially on June 1). Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

On it. SusunW (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Something to look forward to! Mujinga (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I realize Delabrede took part in the last Women in Green event and I have encouraged further participation in this one. As virtually all the articles about women artists listed under pages created by Delabrede are already B-class, it looks to me as if it would not be difficult to promote several of them to GA. So as not to overburden Delabrede, perhaps other contributors interested in art or American history would like to nominate one or more of them for the event and help with the assessment. Unfortunately, as I am no expert in art or American biographies, I don't think I could take any of these on myself.--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, @Ipigott!
Delabrede (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Frances Cleveland FAC

Frances Cleveland (which I had first improved as part of the October editathon) is currently a featured article candidate. Unfortunately, she was a woman, not a battleship, a highway, or a tropical storm, so the usual reviewers have ignored the entry and it's set to be failed due to lack of reviews. Ignoring for now the fact that FAC is one of the many areas of Wikipedia that needs reform, does anyone have advice on how to proceed? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Sorry to hear about the difficulty -- lack of FAC reviewers does seem to be an ongoing issue (especially, as you point out, for non-battleships, highways and tropical storms!). One of our WiG goals this year is to review more FACs and peer review requests, so hopefully a few more members spot your article now and can contribute feedback. I can take a look at it over the next few days. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll definitely owe you one! I do think that FAC and peer review could have a more prominent place at WiG. I would say that they should be easier to find, but it looks like the FACs are already listed on the main project page, so I'm not sure how much more visible they can get. The answer might just be to bring more activity to this project as a whole (easier said than done, of course). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien Items 4 & 5 on the goal tracking page are for FA noms and FA/Peer Reviews. If you list nominations there, it may increase visibility. My time is really limited for the next week or so, because of real life stuff I have only managed to edit a few hours here and there, but I'll try to look at her after Tuesday. SusunW (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
As promised, I started, but will have to come back to it tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Pass or fail, I really appreciate it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I just want to say thanks again to the users here that did review work on that article with me. It looked like this when I found it, and I decided to work on it specifically for entry in the October editathon. And now, again thanks to the help of this project and the people here, it's a featured article! Now the question is which one to revisit for FA next... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Great job! Looking forward to the next one. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Congrats Thebiguglyalien! :-) A job well done. Happy to assist with the review. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations Thebiguglyalien! You could list it on the 2023 FA goals if you like. SusunW (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I always forget about that page. I'll try to keep it updates as I nominate women's biographies. Between WiR and WiG, that's where most of my content creation is. For now, I've added all of my relevant GA noms from this year. On a related note, we are now on track to meet the wildcard goal, and then some. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Goals for 2023

I noted that we are half-way through the year and per our Goal Tracking, it does not appear as if we are going to make any of our benchmarks for this year. I see that there are nominations and reviews that are occurring which aren't being listed (I know that for example Mujinga reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josette Simon/archive1 and both @BennyOnTheLoose and Alanna the Brave: started reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frances Cleveland/archive2, of which Thebiguglyalien nominated) and don't know if these were inadvertent omissions or purposeful. I am unsure how we track our progress if articles don't get listed as they are nominated and reviewed, but if the present system isn't working, perhaps we need to discuss it? SusunW (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of aware that there's goal tracking going on, but I haven't looked into it closely. It's unclear what exactly is supposed to be listed and by whom, especially since it seems that reviews need the ascent of both the nominator and the reviewer to be listed. It also probably doesn't help that it uses language and criteria that's at best vague and at worst racially insensitive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Good feedback Thebiguglyalien, thank you. Primarily if you nominate something you list it as , and when the status changes, you remove the N or C or mark as . On the reviews, they are listed when completed by whoever did them (in the case of a peer review or FA review the 1st reviewer lists them following the format of 1st and 2nd reviewer). Please feel free to change the language on the page to something more suitable or which makes it clearer, I doubt that Alanna the Brave will contest constructive changes. SusunW (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi SusunW, thanks for the comments it's inadvertent omissions on my part since I (like you) am much more interested in writing stuff so I tend to leave the admin for a time I feel like doing it and wrap it all together. I'm here now because I thought to add Phoolan Devi as a peer review since it didn't get any comments yet and I hope to take it to FA.

On the goaltracking, I personally am fine with not reaching targets as long as we all create stuff but actually I think on a few things we are on track:

  • Goal #1: Women, peace, and diplomacy (GA nominations):
  • "nominate 20 articles for Good Article (GA) status on the theme of peace and diplomacy" - so far we have 12 so that's good
  • "at least 13 article nominations with a BIPOC focus" - yes this one we might not reach
  • Goal #2: Wildcard category (GA nominations)
  • "nominate 40 articles about any women or women's works for GA Status." - so far we have 11 so 40 seems ambitious but the current event might help, also if we add the 12 from goal1 it's on track
  • "at least 13 article nominations with a BIPOC focus" - hard to say at this stage
  • Goal #3: Good Article nomination reviews
  • "at least 40 Good Article (GA) nomination reviews" - so far we have 25 so that's on track
  • Goal #5: Peer Review & Featured Article Reviews
  • "at least 15 PR or FAC articles about women or women's works receive feedback from 2 or more editors" - so far we have 5 so yes 15 might be ambitious but it's good to push ourselves!!

On the present system, well some of this stuff like the GA and FA noms could be automated by someone more technically minded than me, although the reviewing work I think we'd still have to add ourselves. There is stats stuff available out there - for example we could have Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green/Article alerts like Wikipedia:WikiProject Squatting/Article alerts already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green/Article alerts and we coould have WP:WiG stats like WP:SQUAT stats Mujinga (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose we could also add DYKs as well Mujinga (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Good observations, Mujinga and yes, I focus on writing. I try to review, but it is a struggle for me. I'm also not remotely competitive, so who does what or produces what isn't on my radar usually. It just struck me when I went to post a review that we were not as far along as I recall us being last year and I wasn't sure if that was an accurate portrait, since I knew personally of several omissions, as noted above. Technology on WP is completely baffling to me and I leave it to others entirely. I appreciate your well thought-out analysis. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for leading this discussion, SusunW, Thebiguglyalien and Mujinga. As Susun notes, constructive edits and/or suggestions for improving the WiG Goals page are 100% welcome. I'm not too worried about reaching this year's goals yet, if only because we seem to have ebbs and flows of activity throughout the year. I'd like to note that we do have a general yearly Talk Page template to track non-editathon articles that have been nominated or reviewed by WiG members -- it's linked near the top of the Goals page, but I've noticed it's not regularly used, and may not be visible enough. Can I ask what you all think about the "13 article nominations with a BIPOC focus" line? I remember that the original intention was to help counter white/Western bias in our chosen articles and encourage members to improve articles about women of different nationalities/ethnicities/racial identities, but I don't know whether it's been particularly effective (or, as suggested, whether it's even been felt appropriate by all WiG members). Maybe there are better approaches we could be taking in future (e.g., partnering with other relevant WikiProjects on new GA or FA events)? Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Andromeda (mythology)

I've brought the article on Andromeda to GAN but am unclear how to proceed now: not even sure which WikiProject notice(s) it should have (do you include women in mythology who may well have been real...?). The article is largely on the history of (male-dominated) art but with a bit of mythology, a bit of scholarship, and a bit on race and gender ... not toooo sensitive a subject, then. If anyone has advice on how it should be positioned that'd be gratefully received. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Other Greek mythological women (e.g. Medea and Deianira) are included in WP:WMNHIST, so I think Andromeda could be too. The project itself says of its scope: Mythological, legendary, or fictional characters may be included in this project only if they have a high degree of significance for the understanding of women's history, as indicated by existing scholarship. The character's article should provide perspectives on the lives of real women and their activities, as interpreted by scholars. A character who is of interest because she embodies attitudes toward women may be covered more aptly by WikiProject:Gender Studies or WikiProject Feminism. You have worked on the article and would be best placed to judge whether that fits.
Regardless of whether or not you can tag the article as being part of Wikiproject Women's History, I would consider it definitely within the scope of Women in Green and you can list it on our Goal-Tracking page if you want. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks! Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Angela Merkel is nominated for GA

Angela Merkel, probably one of the more difficult Hot 100 articles, was recently nominated for GA. Regardless of whether anyone here is interested in reviewing it, it might be one to keep an eye on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

An interesting development re linking

I thought people might be interested to hear that after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#DL,_sections,_and_mobile_readers, the MoS got tweaked to permit duplicate links in the body of the text, on occasion. Obviously the devil is in the implementation but I'm broadly in favour of this since (for example) it means I can link a woman twice if she crops up as a friend in one section of another woman's biography and then plays a major role in the next section. To me that makes sense. Mujinga (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. I actually prefer multiple links in articles, but I'm always asking people to remove them. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it makes perfect sense, and it has in fact always been permitted where the context required it, but people have preferred simple rules that could be applied mechanically, as they're easier to maintain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Definitely interesting, and it seems sensible considering that readers may pick and choose which parts of an article to read (meaning they may miss that first occurrence of linking in an earlier section). Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Peer review request for Sappho

If anyone has any time to read through Sappho and comment on the peer review, any comments would be greatly appreciated. I brought it up to GA back in 2017 and am wondering how close it is to being ready for WP:FAC. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I need a couple of days to finish stuff already on my plate, but I'm happy to take a look, with the caveat that I am no expert on ancient history. SusunW (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Georgia O'Keeffe

Hi all. A new member here with academic background in art history. I saw that Georgia O'Keeffe was on the 100 list on the project's main page and I am wondering if there is anyone here willing to collaborate on the article? I won't have enough time in the coming months to do it on my own, but would be more than happy to divide the work up between several enthusiastic editors. I am happy to discuss in more detail if there is interest! Thanks! Ppt91talk 15:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Women at FAC

I'm happy to say there's a decent amount of women proposed as featured articles right now:

I honestly don't remember seeing so many - and I've probably missed one as well, apologies in advance if I have Mujinga (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Angel Aquino/archive1.
A very good turn-out indeed! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for Angel Aquino, I'll do a source review for that now Mujinga (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Could add Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hot Sugar (song)/archive1 to the list as well Mujinga (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
In my experience, source reviews are the most avoided part by reviewers, so I am sure the nominator will be grateful. Thanks for putting this list here Mujinga SusunW (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:WIG

Hello everyone, I have recently made some improvements to this template to make it easier to use. You can now just type the meetup number as the parameter (e.g. {{WIG|4}}) and the information about that meetup will automatically pull through. I've left a couple of queries on the template talk page too in case anyone is interested. Happy editing! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Harriet Arbuthnot

I have nominated Harriet Arbuthnot 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) 17:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

GAR for Carol Kaye

Carol Kaye has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Carol Kaye/1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Women in Red under FAs now on our Showcase page on how to provide improved collaboration between Women in Red, Women in Green and Women in presenting evolving FAs, GAs, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting inputs at AFD - Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque

Requesting inputs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque (2nd nomination) discussion. - Bookku (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

August record month for FAs and GAs

In connection with discussions on the Showcase page on Women in Red's talk page, this project may be interested to see that in August there were 11 new FAs about women or their works and 62 new GAs, both far in excess of the usual monthly averages. It seems to me that Women in Green probably worked on many more of these than those tagged WiR on their talk pages. It may be useful to ensure the banner is more consistently included where appropriate. In any case, congratulations on all the recent successes. Please let me know if any are missing from the lists or if any corrections are needed.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott Perhaps the increase is attributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/August 2023? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Another Believer: That certainly seems to be an important factor. Nevertheless it's great to see the interest in GAs concerning women. I carefully monitor the new GAs each day and I can confirm that many more have been promoted than those about men. Women in Green have also recently organized a Wildcard event which is producing results.--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Awesome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

October GA Editathon - Around the World in 31 Days

Hi everyone -- the event page for our October 2023 GA editathon is now live and ready for sign-ups! This event's theme is "Around the World in 31 Days," and participants are encouraged to nominate/review articles about women and women's works from as many different geographical regions as possible -- we'll see if we can cover at least 31 different countries (past or present). All experience levels welcome. Please share with any friends and colleagues who might be interested. A couple of volunteer items below:

  • @BennyOnTheLoose, Mujinga, and Vanamonde93: Are you okay to monitor the 20-minute assessments page again? We had some discussion last June about keeping this feature open on a more permanent basis, but I got distracted by off-Wiki work this summer -- let's try keeping it open after October.
  • Anyone interested in helping with event promotion? I'll be reaching out to other WikiProjects this week, but would appreciate any ideas or assistance you may be able to offer.

As always, if you notice any errors/typos on the page or have suggestions for improvement, please let me know (or start a discussion on the event talk page). Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to say that we should collaborate with regional or continental wikiprojects like WP:WikiProject Latin America and WP:WikiProject Asia, but I don't know how active they are. Any active participants at Wikipedia:The 100,000 Challenge might also be interested in this, although the challenge itself also isn't terribly active. And a more aesthetic suggestion: maybe at the bottom of "article outcomes", we could have a checklist of which countries have been covered. (Is the 31 country goal specifically for nominating articles, or would we also say it's done if someone reviews an old nomination from a given country?) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: I'll definitely reach out to regional WikiProjects (there seems to be some measurements of activeness here), and that's a great idea to try the 100,000/10,000 challenges too. Would you like to contact a few? The "31 countries" goal will also include reviews of older noms, not just new nominations. I've been pondering how we might best track the number of countries covered: a checklist would be a solid solution, but I'm also intrigued by the possibility of tracking countries via a global map, which could be really cool. Would take a bit of work, but the instructions don't look impossible... Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien; @Alanna the Brave: I've just posted the invite message on most of the regional WikiProject talk pages. Hopefully we'll get some responses, so I'll keep an eye out for any folk in those projects that might be interested. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
If we wanted even wider reach, then in a week or so we could make a request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages for a notice to appear on every registered user's watchlist, much like the Guild of Copyeditors drives do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Grnrchst! And wow, Thebiguglyalien -- I had no idea there was a simple way to request that kind of notice. I'm going to send a mass mailout to all WiG members tonight, just to catch anyone who hasn't seen the talk page notice, and I think the watchlist notice would be a great experiment (I can add it to my list for next week if you're not planning on it already). Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: I've requested a watchlist notice request. We'll see what happens! Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hopefully that will do the trick. I've also left a notice at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, since many frequent GA nominators and reviewers hang out there. And I might have also started working on six different biographies that I plan on nominating shortly after the event starts... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to continue to provide 20-minute assessments if the community would find it helpful. I should be reasonably active through the month of October. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Vanamonde! Much appreciated. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm also happy to provide 20-minute assessments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Me as well - and I'd be fine with keeping it open after October, cheers Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Fabulous -- thank you both! Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


Gender gap in Vital Articles

As WiG is focused on core articles about women, I thought I'd take a wee look at the gender gap in the list of vital articles. What I found was sadly unsurprising. Of each of the biographical categories, only one (entertainers, et al) represents women at above the Wikipedia-wide average of 19.64%, with 33.7% of its entries being women. For the others, women make up:

This means women together make up roughly 16.4% of level-5 articles, dropping down to 10.3% of of level-4 vital articles and then even further to only 9% of level-3 vital articles.

All this has gotten me thinking about how we can close the gap a little on the vital articles list. As women were most under-represented in the category of scientists and mathematicians, I opened a discussion about adding some more glaring omissions. But even if all of my suggestions were added, this would only bring it in line with politicians and religious figures. If we wanted to bring the gap up to the Wikipedia-wide average, then (not accounting for removals) we would need to add over 500 women to the V5 list; about 180 women to the V4 list; and at least 10 women to the V3 list. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I have two thoughts. First, having tried to get involved in VA last year, I found the whole thing to be an arbitrary, meaningless mess. It's just an effect of that natural desire to rank things, even if the rankings don't make sense. This is doubly the case for the free-for-all V5 list. Second, how would we decide the target percentage for a given category before we consider it representative? Throughout history, what percentage of politicians and leaders have been women? What if we only limit it to the really historically consequential ones at the level of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Queen Victoria, and Mao Zedong (notice the pattern)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I had the same problems with vital articles. There is no criteria for selecting who is vital, it is an entirely arbitrary choice of the editors on that page. The second issue is that since women's history is not taught in basic history courses, there are two streams of women that one needs to evaluate #1 women who were critical for the development of women and #2 women who were consequential in world history. These may not be the same. So for example, Mary Wollstonecraft, Carrie Chapman Catt, Aletta Jacobs, Simone de Beauvoir etc. are huge figures in women's history and the recognition of women as part of humanity, but most people who have only studied general history have no idea who they were. Because women were categorized in the group "Criminals, lunatics, women, and children", I would argue that those who changed the perception of the world about 1/2 the people in the world were far more critical to our collective history than a leader of a single country, warrior, etc. but I would lose that argument, because the criteria of vital consequence is defined in general history terms – war, politics, economics, technology – rather than social development. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Social development is certainly part of general history no less than politics, economics etc. are. However, a 'change of perceptions' is something vague, gradual and difficult to attribute to a specific person. It's hard to prove that most of the specific individuals you mentioned have played a decisive role even just for the change of perceptions, since the same ideas were expressed at the same time by many (of both genders). When it comes to actual changes in legislation concerning women, political leaders are the ones who effect the change - while also doing the same in many other areas. And political leaders during most of history have been men. The changes produced by Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon and Mao were much more sudden, radical and clearly associated with these individuals personally than the gradual shift in attitudes and legislation concerning women. Even in the sphere of letters and philosophy, leading figures like Voltaire have contributed to more fundamental changes that aren't limited to any specific group of people, and which ultimately have had consequences for all groups. Women's rights were just one logical extension of the general principles of liberalism and democracy that, again, had been introduced and championed most prominently by men.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agreed with both SusunW and Thebiguglyalien on the erratic nature of the Vital Articles list, especially at the lower levels. It's not really clear to me how one is meant to determine what the 10,000 "most vital" encyclopedic articles are, but some of the entries on that list just... aren't. I don't think that many people really pay attention to the vital article lists anyway, so any effort spent determining who should and should not be on them is largely wasted – doing virtually anything else on wikipedia is probably more productive. (Personally, whenever I have looked at the people on the VA lists from ancient Greece and Rome I've come away baffled by both who is missing and who is listed, but I generally think that any time I spend on discussing that could be better spent improving the articles in question...) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Grnrchst -- I'm glad to see you got some support for your VA suggestions to boost those numbers a bit. I find it interesting to see those low percentages (although definitely not surprising!). I feel like the only practical way to bump up percentages of women in VA to the Wikipedia-wide average would be to propose a big collective addition/adjustment to the VA quotas, rather than adding individual women one at a time. In principle, I'd like to see more women in the lists -- but as per the above comments, it's not clear how we would choose articles as more or less "vital," and I'm not sure how many editors pay attention to VA, either. My current thinking is that group events/drives are a better way to energize work on notable articles about women. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobel Prizewinner Katalin Karikó needs attention

The biography of the recent Nobel Prizewinner in Medicine, Katalin Karikó, would benefit from the attention of this project. Perhaps someone would like to nominate it for GA. If so, although I am no expert in medicine, I would be happy to help with copy editing. Initial work should in particular remove citations from the lead and make sure they are appropriately included in the body of the article. It may be sensible to wait for a few days until details from continuing press coverage have been added to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Sorry I missed this! Only seen now I archived most of this year's discussions. :/ Since you left this note, the article seems to have grown a fair amount. @MaryMO (AR): As you're the main contributor, would you be interested in taking this article to GA? --Grnrchst (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, Grnrchst. I still think it could be brought up to GA without too much difficulty but I would appreciate the assistance of contributors from WiG. I would be happy to help it along if others are interested.--Ipigott (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The Hot 100

There are currently three vacancies on the Hot 100. Since the project is getting an influx of new participants this week, I figure this is as good a time as any to make sure the Hot 100 actually has 100 articles. Is there a usual process for moving future suggestions up? I could see there being disagreement about what names to add, and I see a few in the future suggestions list that should probably be removed rather than promoted. Nearly a third of the suggestions seem to be Sri Lankan women added by one person without regard for how prominent they are (I'm tempted to WP:BOLDly remove that part of the list). And another thought, for months where there's not an editathon, maybe we could start choosing a "woman of the month" from the Hot 100 where everyone collaborates on that specific article during the month to get it closer to GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I went ahead and promoted Yoko Ono, Indira Ghandi, and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela up to the Hot 100—they seemed like obvious choices since they're well known figures and it allows for some diversity on the list. I also removed some lesser known figures from the suggestions list: about a dozen Sri Lankan women, a few Italian architects, and a few German textile artists. These three types seem to have been mass added without consideration for whether the individuals were as historically influential as the other names on the list, and they threw off the balance of what nationalities are included in the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: I like the idea of choosing an "article of the month" to help make some progress through the list. I wasn't around when the Hot 100 list was started, but I think the initial idea was simply to add women who are listed in the Vital Articles project. Since the Vital Articles process is a bit questionable/unclear, I don't know that it's the best process for promoting new articles to the Hot 100 -- but I do support adding more diversity to the list, as we have lots of Western actresses/entertainers and royalty included, but fewer women from different occupations and other parts of the world. Maybe in future we can identify areas where the list is lacking and purposely add notable women from those areas. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Alanna the Brave, this might be worth revisiting since we're nearing the end of the month. Maybe we can gauge interest to see how many editors would help out if we picked an article to work on through the month of November. Of course, that may depend on which article we would choose as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: I can't speak for others, but sometimes I'm reluctant to start big projects at the end of the calendar year (worn out and looking towards the holidays!). Choosing a Hot 100 article may be best left for the new year -- but maybe we can at least start by deciding on a process? What if a different editor takes on the lead role each month: choose the article, assess what needs to be done, draw up a list of "actions" needed, and monitor the article's progress as other editors contribute? We could start a planning process now and try to choose 2-3 articles (and lead editors) for the first few months of 2024. Happy to see what you and other WiG participants think. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
In terms of geographical distribution, the Hot 100 contains 42 American women and 76 women from the Western world as a whole. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: This definitely reflects my impressions of the list (and probably the general bias of Wikipedia as a whole, as well). Thanks for checking! Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
In contrast, about half of the women in our "Future suggestions" section are from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe or Latin America. I'd definitely support rejigging the Hot 100 to include more women that aren't from North America and Western Europe. More diversity of options might attract more attention. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


Given name articles

I am considering to improve some articles about Dutch given names. I've recently nominated Femke as good article. It is not very long, but I don't think such articles have to be, although the GA review could prove me wrong. Are there more people here interested in improving articles about women's given names? – Editør (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The article Femke has passed the GA review, and I hope it can be an example for more green feminine given name articles. – Editør (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
@Editør: Wow, nice work with this! I'm so used to seeing given name articles as little more than disambiguation pages, so I'm very impressed by the level of detail in this article. It may be worth getting in touch with the folk over at WikiProject Anthroponymy, if you're interested in expanding more of these articles. Their top-rated articles on women's given names are Begum, Chloe, Emma, Joanne, Margaret, Mary and Sarah. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not sure how active the anthroponymy project is, but thanks for the suggestion. It will surely be more challenging for more international names like Sarah to make them green, but I see no reason why an article about a given name should merely be a disambiguation page. — Editør (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
FYI, I also have been improving some feminine given name articles, I have currently Tamara (given name) as a GA nomination. The Blue Rider 12:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Nice! I don't think I have time to review it right now, but I will give you some suggestions for improvement on your talk page. – Editør (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What to do about Hatshepsut?

Hatshepsut is in our hot 100 and is one of the the few level-3 vital articles on women that haven't yet been brought to GA or FA (along with Frida Kahlo, Catherine the Great and Florence Nightingale). In January 2023, Gingermead posted a request for input on our talk page and opened a peer review regarding the work they had done on Hatshepsut, with the intention of nominating it for GA. However, Gingermead was blocked not long after opening the peer review, as the account was found to have been a sock-puppet of a user that had been banned a year before for abusing multiple accounts.

This leaves us with a problem, as the article's main contributor (with 31.9% of authorship) can't take it any further and none of the other contributors have authored more than 10% of the article, which is the threshold for one to not be considered a drive-by nomination. Given how far this article has already come and how important it is to our project, would anyone here be interested in adopting it for further work and a possible future GA nom? It would be really good if we could get this one over the line. -- Grnrchst (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Matooskie

Article on a Canadian First Nations woman which has now turned green and is submitted for DYK nom (Template:Did you know nominations/Matooskie). If anyone has any improvements they wish to make to the article, comments, or input at the DYK nom please let me know! Thank you GnocchiFan (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WiG End-of-Year Reflection & Planning for 2024

Hi everyone! We're approaching the end of 2023, so I'm just starting a thread here to discuss WiG goals from this year and for next year. We've powered our way through 2023 Goals #1, #2, #3 and #4 (big thank you to our newest project members for their contributions). This year we also introduced Goal #5 to boost group peer reviews of Peer Review requests and Featured Article Candidates, and I think we've just reached our goal of reviews for 15 articles -- most received feedback from at least two WiG participants (and all from at least one). If you have a chance, please take a look at the Peer Review request for Pamela Stephenson, which has been open for three months but only has comments from one WiG reviewer.

Planning for 2024:

  • What goals or events would you like to see next year? What worked in 2023 and what could be improved? Personally, I liked the PR & FAC group reviewing goal, but I think the system for tracking these reviews on our Goals page was maybe a bit clunky. We also need a better way of flagging new relevant PR and FAC review requests so they're not lost or going unnoticed. On another note, our GA editathons went well, and I thought the October 2023 "Around the World in 31 Days" event had a strong boost in attendance/engagement (great promotional support from WiG members!). We had a ton of requests for 20-minute assessments, and I handed out a total of 20 barnstars to eligible participants afterwards, as compared to our usual 13.
  • Any suggestions for our next themed GA nominations goal (#1)? We usually follow Women in Red's annual theme -- I don't think they've chosen one yet, so we're free to wait or come up with an alternative.
  • Any ideas on how to make progress on our Hot 100 List? This has been raised by multiple editors. I know these articles are a lot of work, and many WiG participants (including myself) have mixed feelings about how they are chosen or not chosen for inclusion on this list, but it's true that these articles tend to have high viewership numbers, and I think it's worthwhile bringing their writing, sourcing, and accuracy up to higher standard. I had a chat with Thebiguglyalien earlier this year (see thread), and he suggested we could try choosing a "woman of the month" from our Hot 100 List each month and collectively work to improve that article. I like the idea -- if we did that, I'm thinking it would be helpful having a different editor act as project lead for each month's article (assess the work needed, track the work completed, etc). All feedback or other suggestions welcome.
  • Who would like to volunteer for our 20-minute assessment team going forward? This initiative provides 20-minute "mini-reviews" for articles (on request) before they are formally nominated for GA status, in order to catch any major issues and prevent frustrating quick-fail situations. Volunteers should have gone through the GA process a few times prior as a nominator or reviewer, just to ensure strong familiarity with GA reviews and criteria. We've talked about keeping this feature open outside of editathon events, so that's on my list for the new year. I'm thinking we may want to adjust the promised response time for requests to 5-7 days instead of 48 hours (to keep it more sustainable for volunteers).

That's it for now -- I hope you all are safe and well and looking forward to the holiday season. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think WiG has done really well this year and will no doubt continue to build on its success next year. I'd love to continue being part of the 20 minute assessment team and as I said already elsewhere I'd be fine to have it open all the time - it seems to provide a useful function in that editors who are new to the arcane and confusing GA process can get some advice. For me personally, I had a bad review GA experience from Vanamonde (interestingly enough a fellow twenty minute assessment team member) who put me through an arcane and confusing process; this stopped me submitting more articles for GA and indeed participating in anything except the twenty minute assessments; I'm sorry I didn't help more with "Around the World in 31 Days" as I had originally offered to do.
I do see myself doing WiG-related work at FAC and PR, since there the work is more collaborative and involves more people. I don't really need events or challenges as a motivation, I sort of bumble around and hit things of interest to pursue, but I would support WiG taking (even) more time to consider righting the systemic biases of wikipedia. I have very much enjoyed working with WiG stalwarts such as your good self Alanna the Brave, BotL, Grnchrst and SusunW. I hope to meet more people next year and will do my best to avoid forming cliques, we really must continue to be welcoming to newcomers. Finally, I would love to collaborate with other editors in bringing an article to FA standard as co-nominators - that strikes me as something that could be really enjoyable. Mujinga (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I think having a permanent pointer to editors willing to give pre-GA feedback on the 20-minute-review model is a good idea, and I'd be willing to put my name down for that. Congratulations to everyone who has done the hard work writing and reviewing GAs this year – as I recall it was a slow start, but the numbers for both wildcard GA noms and GA reviews are our best yet by some margin. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I forgot about the Sappho PR in mentioning enjoyable collaborations Caeciliusinhorto! Any plans to take that to FAC? Mujinga (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
My plan is still to take it to FAC, but I haven't done any further work on the article since the peer review closed, and I have some big real-life things going on at the moment to occupy my time – I'd like to do some more work on it in the coming year, though. There are still a few articles on her works which I haven't got around to bringing to GA (Ode to Aphrodite, Sappho 31, Sappho 44 and Sappho 96 IIRC; Poetry of Sappho could go to FL if I put the work in to update all of the lists based on Neri's edition), and at least a couple of the poem articles could be brought to FA (Tithonus poem would need major work but is probably the easiest). So yes, there's plenty of Sappho to keep me occupied on wikipedia in the next year!
Outside of Sappho, I've been working over the last couple of years on the canon of Greek women poets. Of the remaining four Nossis is next on the list; Moero and Praxilla might be doable, but I fear Myrtis is just impossible to write a GA on because the scholarship isn't there. There's also women in ancient Sparta that I have been poking at for even longer than Sappho. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I too am really happy with the progress we've made this year in improving articles about women. As Mujinga said "I don't really need events or challenges as a motivation", as I have dedicated most of my life to writing women back into the historic record. I have genuinely enjoyed the collaborations this year on peace activists and pushed myself to do more reviews. (I don't like doing them any more than I ever have, question my own neutrality/skill each time I do one, but I am learning to be a tiny bit more comfortable in critiquing others' work.) Because I tend to focus on controversial figures, I appreciate the input of reviewers and collaborators to ensure that they are balanced. I've worked with several editors I had never before collaborated with and enjoyed those experiences. So, I intend to keep pushing myself to do reviews across the board, but that said, I would be useless at a 20- minute assessment, because it would take me at least a day to consolidate my thoughts. WiR is leaning toward education as its annual theme and given the high participation of women in the field, it seems like it would offer many opportunities for a theme. That said, perhaps we do away with the themed event, as besides myself with collaborators, only 3 other articles were nominated for the theme. Just a thought. I'll probably never work on Hot 100 women, mainly because high number of views does not in the least equate to historical importance. Probably just me, but I don't want to encourage the focus of quantity over quality on the whole platform in a project devoted to quality. (Caeciliusinhorto-public do you speak/read Greek? There are activists from there on my radar, but I'd need a collaborator and I know they are waaaaay outside your historic period.) SusunW (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry SusunW, afraid I can't help with Greek. I tend to agree with you on the annual theme – it's always the area which sees the least interest. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
To bounce off what Mujinga and SusunW said. For me, edit-a-thons aren't so much a source of motivation as they are a source of focus. I'm often overwhelmed by the magnitude of the work we have ahead of us, so stuff like Women in Red's alphabet edit-a-thons help narrow my focus enough that I feel capable of tackling what I have in front of me. This is particularly why I liked the most recent edit-a-thon, as it got me thinking about different women from various different regions that I'd been wanting to improve the articles on but never felt like I had the time. I eventually ended up improving to GA biographies on a woman from each continent except Antarctica!
As for the themed goal, I'd be happy to follow along with Women in Red's proposed education focus. It's an area that women have contributed a lot to. I really like the idea of doing a woman of the month event for our Hot 100, as improving these articles as part of a collective effort may help a lot in making the effort seem less daunting. Personally I also hope we can do a bit of a stock take with the Hot 100, as there's an awful lot of modern American actors and singers on there; personally I have next to no interest in any of them. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mujinga, Caeciliusinhorto, SusunW, and Grnrchst: Happy new year! Thank you for all your feedback and suggestions. I'm going to tackle setting up our 2024 Goal Tracking page today. I think it is a fair comment that our themed goals haven't attracted many editors (it's usually only one or two folks who tackle the majority of them each year), so I'll support combining our GA nominations into one annual goal for 2024. Maybe we can save the theme of women educators for one of our GA editathons? Later this month, I'll shift my attention toward experimenting with a long-term 20-Minute Assessments page and some sort of set-up for a Hot 100 "Women of the Month" page -- the latter may not be of interest to everyone (and that's totally fine), but I'm still interested to see if it helps us progress through some of the larger women's biographies. As always, please do raise any new ideas/comments/concerns about WiG activities as we continue, and feel free to say so if you would like a more direct role in setting up or maintaining things. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
In terms of things I think I could do to help maintain the project, I'm probably going to go forward with doing quarterly backlog summaries of unreviewed GA nominations, like the one above. I think if we can collectively do better at cutting down on the backlog, that may help encourage more people to nominate their articles on women and women's works. (I know I find long wait times for GA reviews a little discouraging.) I'm also happy to help out where I can for edit-a-thons, I think a specific education-focused one rather than a year-long theme might be better. Personally I often forgot that the year-long drive existed last year. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green/Archive_6&oldid=1237974534"