Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Meetup/4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thoughts on the editathon[edit]

I'm really glad to see this return. The last editathon got me into GA reviewing, an area where I've since become much more involved. It also started me on my U.S. first ladies project, which I've made good progress on and will be continuing here. A few miscellaneous thoughts:

  • A list of current GA nominations about women can be found at User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting#Culture/Biography/Women. It's autogenerated though, so it's not perfect and it misses most non-biographies, such as works by women. I'd be happy to maintain a complete list of GA nominations related to women like I did last time if that would be in any way helpful. I rather enjoyed making it.
  • Note that there's currently a discussion about increasing the requirements on inline citations for GA so that they're the same as DYK's requirements. I don't know if it will take effect before the end of this editathon, but it's good practice anyway to make sure everything in the body is cited.
  • Good Article mentorship hasn't been active for a while. It might be better to direct new reviewers to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations
  • I recently wrote a good article reviewing guide, which some may find helpful.
  • Maybe featured articles could be eligible as well? As I said on the project talk page, I agree that it would be a natural extension for this WikiProject.
  • I think it would be really cool if, in addition to reviewing each other's nominations, we tried to clear the backlog of the few dozen already pending GA nominations about women. Am I biased and just saying that because I've had several awaiting a reviewer for months? Yes, yes I am.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great to be back! Thanks again for helping put this together. Just thoughts on featured articles: I think that would certainly be a good extension for the project and would support that. My only hesitation would be whether or not we have people experienced in nominating/reviewing FAs, which would be quite necessary for encouraging and helping others to submit/review. Just for myself, I've not submitted anything for FA yet and my attempts to ask for mentorship on one of my articles have so far gone unanswered. :( -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grnrchst I've only got 2.5 FA under my belt (one was a collaboration), so I don't qualify as a mentor, (criteria is 3+). Don't know who you asked to mentor you, but Gog the Mild is a coordinator for FA and if he isn't busy might be willing to help you find one. SusunW (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: Glad to see you taking part again. And thanks for all the good thoughts (and your new reviewing guide! I'll take a look at it). I think this particular June event should remain focused on GA (it's been organized around GA work), but FA is absolutely something that I think WiG could get more involved with going forward. All suggestions for how to do that are welcome. Maybe we could adjust these GA editathons, or maybe we need to create a separate initiative, I'm not sure -- it's my understanding so far that FA work requires a deeper dive into reliable sourcing, breadth/depth of content, text & image copyright issues, and WP Manual of Style, so if we want to build more group capacity for this type of project, we may need an event/initiative format that provides more time and closer collaboration. Re some of your other GA thoughts: tackling some of the reviewing backlog would be an excellent goal. I appreciated your complete list of nominations during the last event, but it does seem like a lot of time and effort for you, and I'm not sure we have enough reviewer participants to make that entirely worthwhile -- maybe you could focus on highlighting a few different nominations each week during this editathon (particularly older nominations)? Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're highlighting the highest priority ones, there are the three that were in the list last October and still have an open nomination:
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Davidson review is currently on hold, but should pass if the suggestions are implemented. I'm honestly astounded at how long and detailed (>400 footnotes!!!) the Born This Way article is, which is enough to put me off from reviewing it. Maybe someone braver will take it on. :P -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to pick up the review for Born This Way. Grnrchst, or anyone else, feel free to contribute there! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things I thought of:

  • As of a few months ago, there's a requirement that reviewers spot check sources, so that needs to be checked for in any submitted reviews.
  • I usually try to discourage reliance on WP:EARWIG in reviews. For each helpful use of Earwig, there are several that bring up false positives, and there are several more that miss major copyright issues. If it's to be recommended at all, I'd suggest informing any new reviewers that it's not a copyright check, it's something you can do before you even start your copyright check.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: have you put the article in question up for peer review? I've found that can be really valuable, although peer reviews don't always attract participants. I'm happy to give some feedback on the article, but I don't make any claim to being a mentor. Another thing I'd say is that nearly all FAC review comments are very constructive; unless an article is really a long way from meeting the criteria, there's a high chance that responding to comments will lead to a pass. (I've had both GA and FA candidates fail since my first passes, but I keep going!) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: I already did aye. The article is Nestor Makhno, so it's not relevant to this project or edit-a-thon. If you fancy having a look at it, ping me on the article talk page or my own user talk page. -- Grnrchst (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations[edit]

Instead of listing every open nomination about women, I've collected the ones that were opened in 2022 and still haven't found a reviewer. I'm not sure whether women's sporting events are what we're looking for, but I threw them in as well. All nominators are still active.

I hope that at the very least, all of these will be reviewed this month. Full disclosure, one of them is mine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saw Ruth Davidson's biography was on there and immediately picked that up, not missing that chance. :D I may pick up Lidia Patty and Ancelma Perlacios too, although I have already reviewed another article by the nominator (@Krisgabwoosh) Are there rules against reviewing too many of the same nominator's articles? -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a rule against reviewing too many of the same nominator's articles, but as you probably already feel, it would raise eyebrows if you reviewed loads one after the other. I've reviewed a few from Krisgabwoosh and more from for example SusunW. To do two or three from Krisgabwoosh over the course of a month would be fine in my opinion. Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, saw the mention (even my travels cannot keep me from my Wikipedia addiction it seems). Just wanted to note that if you do choose to open a review, I won't be able to respond until at least the tenth. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll hold off until then. Enjoy your trip! -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mujinga. There are a few nominators that I've reviewed multiple articles for, but I think it's helpful for nominators to have a range of reviewers across different articles, as this is likely to provide a better range of feedback. Although we're all working to the same criteria, we each have our own particular focuses and perspectives. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2022 backlog has now been dealt with! All of these articles have either been successfully reviewed or have their reviews open. Nice work all! -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 2022 nominations are going quickly, here are the ones that have been waiting since January 2023. At this rate, we might be able to work through a large portion of backlogged GAs about women.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January's backlog is almost done! Just one more review to go now. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog progress has slowed down a bit since everyone has found what they wanted to work on, but that's to be expected. Here are the nominations from February that still need reviewers. Mostly music articles, including a few where women are co-creators or share writing/performing credit.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few more of these left. It's a shame we didn't get further on the backlog, but a few months isn't bad either. -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on first week[edit]

The editathon is going very well so far! It's good to see that our backlog is getting rapidly dealt with, I hope we can get through as much of it as possible before the end of the month. So long as we review more articles than we submit for review (as we currently are), there should be no issue with moving forward.

There are some articles on women and women's works that have been submitted or reviewed during the edit-a-thon, and sometimes by participants, but haven't yet been added to the list. We should attempt to bring as many of these into the list as possible, in order to give us a more complete picture of things moving forward.

Having just received a pass on my article on Mollie Steimer from Benny, I submitted it for Did You Know. I was wondering if we are keeping track of DYK submissions for the edit-a-thon? I think this would also be a good idea, in order to make sure we're getting more women's representation on that part of the front page.

One final note is that I've noticed a slight tendency towards anglocentrism with the review process. Over half of the reviewed articles are about women and women's works from predominantly English-speaking countries, with a quarter of them from the United States alone. I understand that this is an almost inevitable systemic bias that comes from being on an English language platform, but I just wanted to note it. Also worth noting that our nominations are currently all women from Europe and North America, so let's try and get more representation from the rest of the world in here! -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm enjoying it so far and just put on hold a review from a nomination by you Grnrchst :) Slightly annoyed I don't myself have any articles about women to put forward for GA, but I'm focusing on revamping Lucy Parsons and it *might* be done in time.
On points 2 and 3, recording and DYKs, there's a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green#Goals_for_2023
It's good you raise the question of systemic bias, it's always important to consider! Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the enjoying it too and am appreciative of the opportunity to distract myself right now. I haven't yet reviewed any articles, but I will. I have to get past Monday first. My husband is having surgery that day and the last few weeks have been filled with random pre-op stuff that he could not do by himself. As I feel it wouldn't be fair to start a review and leave someone hanging, I have delayed reviewing for now. That said, I have 2 more articles in the hopper to submit if I can finish them with all the real life stuff going on.
As someone who writes mostly about women immigrants and women who do not speak English as a first language, I can only say that they wait longer for a review than the ones I submit that are Anglo and have mostly English language sources. Also I note that because I live in Mexico many websites in Europe, Africa, and Asia are blocked to me. Thank goodness for the RX as they can usually pull through if I can identify sources, but it is difficult nonetheless, if one cannot even assess whether sources exist for a topic. SusunW (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting about the wait times on reviews. Best wishes to your husband for the surgery! Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mujinga we are hopeful that it will go well. SusunW (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: Best of luck for Monday -- I hope it goes really smoothly. @Grnrchst: Glad things are going well! It's always worth keeping an eye on the geographical balance of articles (I've got my eye on the Indian kitty party article this month, will try to work on it soon). I'm not great at remembering to nominate things for DYK, but I agree it's a good item to track and encourage. I've tentatively added DYK info to the editathon instructions, as well as a section for featured DYKs under Article Outcomes -- feel free to jump in with tweaks and edits, and we'll see how it goes. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the best to your husband! I wish you both well. <3 Grnrchst (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Grnrchst and Alanna the Brave:, sorry to be slow to answer, but I am sure you understand my thoughts and person have been elsewhere. I truly appreciate your well-wishes and we are hoping it goes well. SusunW (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate request?[edit]

I have been volunteering for quite a while with the Women in Religion WikiProject and have been the primary author of a handful of biographical pages on women who have achieved notability through their work in religion and even had a DYK for one of those pages. One of the more senior editors in that WikiProject pointed me to this editathon and encouraged me to participate. As an outgrowth of the page I wrote for Dolores R. Leckey, I created a page for the Madeleva Manifesto and it has been languishing in draft space since last February. Draft:Madeleva Manifesto Would it be appropriate to request a 20 minute review of that Madeleva Manifesto page this month for both good article status and live article status? Engmaj (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Engmaj, I think you are more at the stage of publishing an article and passing the notability criteria, than at the stage of proposing it for a good article, so I would advise to publish first and later nominate for GA, perhaps after checking out other GAs to see what needs to be done. Re notability, be prepared to show the Madeleva Manifesto is notable by showing significant coverage in at least two reliable sources. I can still give a lightning review here:
  • the lead should summarise what is in the article, rather than presenting new information and normally citations aren't needed in the lead because they would be used in the body;
  • what makes Catholic Answers a reliable source - does it have an editorial collective?;
  • "The text can be found here" is not encyclopedic, we want to summarise the secondary sources and provide an external link; #
  • if it is necessary to give all signatories, they need to be cited, is ref2 doing that?;
  • the pdf of the manifesto should be in external links not in the article body.
  • In short, this article would need quite a lot of work to become a GA, although there's no reason why it couldn't be in time.
I hope these comments are useful - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red is also a helpful resource. Good luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! I appreciate the guidance. Engmaj (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing[edit]

Had to make the painful decision to withdraw one of my nominations (Olga Taratuta), as a POV dispute that happened today almost certainly would have lead to it receiving a quick fail. The user that disputed the article's POV is an admin and has reminded me of their "special power" over articles related to Eastern Europe, which has very thoroughly intimidated me from contributing further in that area. As my other pending GA nom is also about someone from Eastern Europe (Ida Mett), I wanted to see if anyone here would like to adopt it before I withdrew that nomination too. I just don't want to go through this again.

Today has frankly been one of the most distressing and discouraging days in all my years on Wikipedia. I'm heartbroken it happened during this edit-a-thon, not least because it happened over an article I'd put so much love and care into. I'm happy to keep reviewing others' articles, but I'm very anxious about the state of my own articles now. -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the tone used in that dispute was excessive, and it might warrant a post on WP:NPOV/N if a consensus isn't formed soon. But if you're referring to this notice, those are quite routine. I've delivered a few of them myself when I happened to see editors discussing a neutrality dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry to hear it's been a distressing experience, Grnrchst -- to me, it looks like Ukraine may be a somewhat personal topic for the admin in question, and perhaps that had some influence on their tone (I think that discussion could have been opened much more effectively than it was). I hope you don't give up on writing more on Eastern European topics, especially if that's a significant interest of yours. I would recommend taking a couple days and giving yourself a break before you decide what to do next with your other GA projects. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what the people above said and I think it's also too easy on wikipedia for editors to sometimes forget they are talking to another human being, not a computer screen. I'm glad Ida Mett was taken for review and I enjoyed working with you Grnrchst on Elena Mikhnenko so please do keep it up. I'd love your opinion on the revamped Lucy Parsons article, which I'm nearly done with now (but absolutely no rush on that). Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: Aye absolutely! Ping me when you think it's in a more-or-less complete state and I'll give you my thoughts. :) Grnrchst (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC):[reply]
@talk I think it's pretty much good to go and I'm giving it a few more days to see if anyone who has it watchlisted has an opinion, so please do take a look! Mujinga (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: I've also delivered and received many of these notices before. The main reason I felt intimidated by it was that it was delivered by an admin that I was in an active dispute with. There was already a power imbalance present in our interaction, which just meant I read the notice essentially as an implicit "do what I say, or else". I haven't ever felt the same way when it's an uninvolved user, or even a fellow low-level user I'm in dispute with, dropping such a notice. -- Grnrchst (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words everyone, you've really helped me through this. <3 Grnrchst (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grnrchst sorry I missed this earlier because I was away. I agree with everyone above there were better ways to address the situation than how this was initiated. I am sorry that you experienced such distress. I know that had it been me, I would have walked away from the discussion and gone radio silent. We all do what we have to to protect our safe spaces. I hope after a few days of recuperation, you are able to move on to other files that you enjoy working on and don't let this situation stop you from editing. I truly appreciate the effort you put into the review you did on Üprus and believe your contributions are valuable. SusunW (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And... that's a wrap![edit]

Congrats to all participants! Once again, I'm floored by all the hard work completed: 25 articles nominated and 42 articles reviewed (or in progress). Thank you to Thebiguglyalien for turning our focus toward older nominations needing attention, and to everyone for their engaged questions and talk-page discussion. I'll be checking editathon entries for qualification and sending out barnstars over the next few weeks. As a reminder, all reviewers should aim to wrap up final editathon reviews by July 14 (if that's feasible). If you haven't already, please tag the talk pages of your articles, either nominated or reviewed, with {{subst:WIG-4}}.

  • Any final feedback on this event? I've implemented a few suggestions so far (resources update, space for DYK), and will check to see if I missed anything else.
  • How often would you like to participate in a GA event like this each year? Should we keep it twice-yearly (next event planned for October), or would you be open to three or four events per year in future?
  • If you'd like to help out with the planning, set-up, or promotion of future Women in Green events, please let me know. I'm interested in the possibility of developing an adapted FA editathon in future -- or maybe a global-themed GA event, where we aim to improve articles from all regions of the world.

All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off thanks to Alanna the Brave for the organisation!! I enjoyed this editathon both as a reviewer and a nominator; an initial thought would be that I wonder if having the 20 minute article assessments available year-round would be helpful. To avoid the feeling of the editathon being an insider club I wanted to review two articles from people I hadn't interacted with before and sadly had to quickfail both of them on text-source integrity issues. Perhaps an assessment might have helped (it might also not have had time to go indepth enough to notice the issues). To reply to the questions above: adding DYK sounds good and I don't have other ideas on that front; I'm not sure how many events we should do since participation from my perspective seemed quite low; I'd be up for discussing and helping out with future events. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
20 minute assessments being available year-round would be great, I think. Might be something worth proposing to the Good article wikiproject, as this could provide a broader benefit beyond Women in Green. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting suggestion -- I think having those 20-minute assessments available year-round would mostly depend on volunteer capacity. Pinging BennyOnTheLoose and Vanamonde93 just to see what they think? Does it seem worthwhile discussing this (either for WiG or as a proposal to WP Good Articles)? If necessary, we could put out a call for more volunteers. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try keeping the 20 minute assessments open year-round. (Easy for me to say, I usually volunteer but rarely end up doing any!) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for putting this together and helping out! It was a wonderful event to take part in. Regarding frequency of these events, while I would definitely like to see more of them, I agree with Mujinga that participation could be an issue. Just on my end, these edit-a-thons require a lot of work and I wouldn't want us to overload ourselves if we're not bringing more people on to share that load. So I would support increasing frequency, but only if we can increase participation along with it. (It seemed like quite a few people only noticed the edit-a-thon was happening later in the month, so more outreach may be necessary)
I would definitely support a global-themed edit-a-thon for our next event. During this event, about two-thirds of our nominations and reviews were about women from the global north/west. About one-third came solely from the United States, which means women from the US are being given as much attention as women from all of Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America combined. (I'll also note that quick-fails were disproportionately high for these regions) So an event to focus more on women from these regions would be greatly appreciated. I'd certainly be up to help put something like this together. -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I echo all of the thanks for putting it together. I was surprised I was able to participate as much as I did, given the real life stuff going on. Articles not so surprising, but I managed to review 3 GA, 1 FA, and 2 PR, which for me, who finds reviewing daunting, that was a huge accomplishment. I also appreciated the "oldest nominations needing review" summaries, as all of the GA I reviewed, I pulled from there. The editathons definitely make me push myself and I am happy for one or two per year to push my limits. I agree with the thought for more coverage of the global south, but I also know (I live there) sourcing is far more difficult, less likely to be digitized, less likely to be available in the WP library, less likely to even have libraries, and less likely to be more than snippets here and there. Very definitely the coverage of women is lacking, focused on trivialities, and incomplete, even for someplace like very industrialized Japan. I worked up an article but could not even find the woman's parents names, her husband's names, her birthdate, the issues she tackled in her decade heading the local women's association, etc. It reminded me of the "great man biographies" of my youth, where one latched on to one aspect of a life that made someone "famous" and omitted everything else. It's hard to write a comprehensive article if the coverage is just not there. Just my thoughts. Again, thanks to everyone for help and participation in the event. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good comments -- thanks everyone! Sounds like we should stick with the current frequency of events, but work on increasing participation. Mujinga and Grnrchst: our next GA event will likely take place in October, so I'll reach out to you both in August for your help with planning or promotion. I've only managed to get events up and running with about two weeks spare for promotion in the past -- I think an earlier start (and maybe some new ideas) could help a lot. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave sounds good! Regarding listing DYKs I just asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Automatic_DYK_listings if Headbomb could sort automated listings for us as well as on WiR, in case that is helpful Mujinga (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very neat! Thanks Mujinga. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green/Meetup/4&oldid=1163880341"