Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green

Hot 100

I think it would be good to know what each of those articles on the list get a month in traffic. The most visited ones perhaps should be more of a priority first? I'll try to add the figures slowly, perhaps Ipigott could help?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already been through most of them. With a few exceptions (which I'll list when I have a bit more time), they generally do pretty well with page views. I was nevertheless surprised that a few extremely famous women were missing from the list. I'll list them here later.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, there's a lot of people to think of! I'm sure there's hundreds more extremely famous women who might make such a list, the idea was to simply highlight 100 of them and I think I've managed to target a good number of them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this project is a fantastic idea! Thank you, Dr. Blofeld for starting it. A Hot 100 is great for showcasing a variety of articles which need work. I also think that a small, targeted list of priority articles is a great idea. I would be interested in helping out with a group effort to improve a few of these articles. Knope7 (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Theresa May

I see that the biography of the UK's new prime minister Theresa May is still at C class. Looks like a top priority for improvement.--Ipigott (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Florrence Griffith Joyner

I've been working on Florence Griffith Joyner, one of the Hot 100/99 articles. There is still plenty to be done, including finding sources, writing, and adding pictures, if anyone would like to join in on that article. Knope7 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Good work Knope7!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Lady Rachel Workman MacRobert

Lady Rachel Workman MacRobert, geologist is close with some polishing. cheers. Beatley (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC) `

Contest

I think long term we're going to need contests running for this. Very few people actually work on the central core articles. Understandable, but they still need to be researched and written.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would try to participate in a contest. Anything particular in mind?

I also think there might be some collaborative things we can try to increase productivity. Has anyone reached out on the talk pages of the core articles? Some of the pages are dormant, but I think a few might still have longtime editors who could be interested in helping. I've also thought about trying to identify articles that have already received GA reviews in the past. Those old reviews might help to identify what needs to be improved. Taking on an entire article can be daunting, so having some suggested starting points might be easier.Knope7 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Core Contest

Has anyone here participated in Wikipedia:The Core Contest in the past? It looks like it's going to start again in May. This might be a good opportunity to have some core women biographies improved. Knope7 (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding women to date pages on WP

Hi everyone, I'm posting here as an FYI - I spend a bit of time finding biographies to add to the main page section "On This Day - born/died this day" and the easiest way to find them is to consult the day pages on WP e.g. 30 April. However, the lists on those pages (events, births, deaths) are overwhelmingly of men. As part of the process of upgrading an article to GA class, could I suggest that editors also add facts from the article to the date pages e.g. the woman's birth and death, and also any particular events such as being elected to an office, or publishing a work, or completing a piece of art. I'm adding details as I come across them, but it would be great to have more added as well. TIA MurielMary (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt

Over the past two days I have made several edits to the Hannah Arendt entry. I think I have taken the article from abysmal to okay. It was abysmal in that the intro and life and work sections mostly focused on her Jewish identity (and she was quite secular) and her affair with Heidegger. And the latter is mostly based on one New Yorker article, full of tawdry speculation. So that is now all diminished. I'd love to hear ideas for how to take the article from okay to good. Hypatiagal (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the Women in Green talk page being put to use! I think the biggest improvement to be made would make sure all non-obvious facts cite to a reliable source. While finding sources for facts already in the article, I usually find that some sources are helpful with expanding the article further. I would also look at short paragraphs (1 or 2 sentences) and see if those can be expanded.

Personally I also like to separate out Early life or Early life and education from career. You might want to consider cleaning up or moving the second paragraph of 'Life and career'. I find the wording of that paragraph to be ambiguous, and it relates to Arendt's later views on Judaism. Maybe talking about her experience being Jewish as a child would fit better chronologically. I know you expressed the opinion that the article focuses too much on her Jewish identity, but based on my reading of the New Yorker article, I think Arendt's Jewish identity would necessarily play a large role in her biography. I think it all goes back to finding more reliable sources, since often times reliable sources can make it clear what aspects of a person's life should receive more focus. Knope7 (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Lists of prominent women

In order to try to compensate for the bias in "core biographies" and similar lists, I have begun to develop a List of the world's most prominent women. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions for improvement. I think it would be useful to create similar lists for countries or continents. I was thinking of creating List of Africa's most prominent women and List of Asia's most prominent women fairly soon. Any ideas?--Ipigott (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

2018 goals

With 2018 right around the corner, is there any interest in setting some small goals for next year? Right now, we have the Hot 100 list and getting 1,000 articles to Good Article status. At the current pace, both of these goals will take years. I was wondering if there is any interest in maybe setting monthly or a yearly goal of nominating or promoting "x" number of articles in a month or spotlighting 1 or 2 of the Hot 100 articles for a month. Any thoughts on this or any other ideas? Knope7 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting idea. I am a bit scared off the promotion process because it seems so demanding and in my areas of interest I'd probably be the only contributor, but I'd be willing to give it a shot. I might be able to help with spotlighting too, depending on the area and my time constraints. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting @The Drover's Wife:! I just got my first Good Articles promoted in 2017 and I'm up to 4 now. How demanding the process is seems to depend on the reviewer, but it's not as overwhelming as it looks. While I'm no expert, I'd be happy to help share what I've picked up along the way.

@Wizardman: great work finding those additional articles! Can you tell when they were promoted? I'm wondering, for the purpose of setting goals, if can estimate how many were promoted in the past year verses how many were promoted a long time ago but didn't make it to our list sooner. Knope7 (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd be interested in improving 1 or more women writer biographies to GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Knope7: - I'd be very interested to hear your experience with GA. Might make it less daunting to try to have a go at (and I'm probably not the only one!) The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Knope7: you can check individual GAs yourself pretty easily for the date of promotion – it will be on the talkpage of the article. Taking two of the articles that Wizardman added the other day entirely at randon, Anggun has been a GA since 2012; Éva Gauthier, since 2007. I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult to automate some analysis of this, if we have any programmers watching this talkpage...

@The Drover's Wife: in some ways, a niche area of interest where you are the only contributor makes it easier to get things up to GA standard - there's not so much vandalism to deal with, and there's no problem with having to deal with other editors who fundamentally disagree with you about what the article should include, or what weight a particular source should be given, or whatever. For your first GA, I think the trick is to choose a subject which is specific enough that you aren't having to deal with a mountain of sources and end up writing a 5,000+ word article, but there are enough sources that you can easily write 1,000-1,500 words. While there's no actual word limit for GA, as soon as you drop below that threshold (and possibly even above it!) you'll get people side-eying your article purely because it's short. (My article Midnight poem is 992 words, and the hardest part was finding enough to say about the poem; but on the other hand I was able to read pretty much everything in English that has ever been written on the poem, and cite most of it; by contrast with Sappho three times as many works are cited and that only scratches the surface on what has been written about her).

If you (or other people reading this!) have questions about the GA process (or just want an article you have worked on looked over with a fresh set of eyes if you are thinking of putting it up for GA), do feel free to message me; I have had 10 articles promoted and reviewed 12 (and am currently conducting a 13th review and waiting for a nomination to be picked up...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to try to tackle Alice Paul this year, if anyone is interested. For me, it is much easier to start from scratch, than wade through checking all the existing sourcing to ensure it supports the statements, reformatting it to more user-friendly harv refs, and rework an existing article. But in this case, she had a major impact on women's rights in the US and it needs to be done. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who responded. I'm thrilled to see there's interest! (Dover's Wife, I intend to write out some of my thoughts on being new to the GA process in the next few days.) I will throw out some options below, please let me know if any sound appealing. We can always tweak the numbers a bit if they feel too high or too low. I would also like to hear any opinions of setting goals for nominations verses promotions because nominations can linger for months. Feel free to add any other ideas. Knope7 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - have project members nominate 25 articles in 2018
• Option 2 - have project members nominate 2 articles per month in 2018
• Option 3 - achieve 800 Good Articles on women overall in 2018 (currently at 735)
• Option 4 - spotlight 1 Hot 100 article per month (possibly tied to current events or Women in Red editathon)
• Option 5 - nominate 6 Hot 100 articles in 2018

Option 3's my favourite, then 1, then 2. The Hot 100 articles are much harder to contribute to because they're such expansive topics, and the systemic bias in that list would probably count me out because there's no one from my region or even most of Asia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I prefer option 1 to option 3 because it's more immediate. We would be able to count articles as soon as they ready for nomination. Articles can sit at GA nominations for several months. To fill out my suggestion for option 1 a little, I would suggest counting any nomination for an article that is within the scope of the project so long as 1) the nominator consents to including it; 2) the nominator is either a major contributor or left a note on the talk page before nominating; and 3) the article is not quick failed. I'd be ok including articles that are nominated in good faith but ultimately fail because I think even a failed nomination can be progress. Knope7 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will set up a page for a goal of nominating 25 articles on women for GA. My idea is to set up a page like the Women in Red editathons. Participation would be entirely voluntary. Knope7 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have finally drafted a page to track progress, currently in my sandbox here. Please feel free to make improvements or suggestions. Knope7 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I have moved the page out of my sandbox to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green/Goal Tracking/2018. I would love to add the first article, however, I am still probably a month away from nominating my next article, Alexis Herman. Once I do a little more clean-up, I plan to send it to the Guild of Copy Editors. If anyone would like to help with some of the citation needed tags or expanding her post-government career, it would be appreciated. Also, I am looking to work on vital article Bonnie Blair, a U.S. speed skater, during the Olympics as I assume that article will garner a lot of traffic. I would welcome any collaborators there was well. Knope7 (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Knope7: -- I'm rather new to the Women-in-Green project (I've mostly focused on creating new articles for Women-in-Red before now), but I'm interested in helping boost the number of GA articles about women this year. I've just nominated a page I've been working on: Tina Strobos. Should I add this to your tracking list? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Alanna the Brave:! Of course you can add to the list! I haven't been very active on Wikipedia (for a mix of reasons, some related to Wikipedia and some related to real life) and it's unlikely to meet any goal. I am happy to see you're working on articles! Knope7 (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Awesome.  ;-) I'll see what I can do. I know this isn't really an active group at the moment (everyone has busy lives!), but I appreciate your attempts to set some goals for Women in Green. Maybe we'll be able to get things moving in time. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Carmen Casco de Lara Castro has been hanging since 14 Sep 2017 without a review, though Marjorie Schick which was nominated in February 2018 was approved that same month. I am working on another, i.e. Mary Hayley. We shall see if the problem with getting Casco reviewed is that she is Latina if Hayley is reviewed before her. SusunW (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this, Mary Hayley is now approved. Casco is still not reviewed, but at least a reviewer is working on it. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Passed 1000 Mark! New goals?

Hi all -- pinging some editors who might be interested: @Knope7: @SusunW: @Wizardman: @14GTR: @The Drover's Wife: @MWright96: @Caeciliusinhorto: @Daniel Case: @Hypatiagal: @Ipigott: @Rosiestep:

I wondered if I could find some more GA articles about women that hadn't yet been added to the list, so I did a manual sweep of the official GA listings this past week. I'm sure I've missed some, but I found just over 250 (many of which were older articles that had never been tagged with WP Women or related WikiProjects), and I've added them to the WP Women in Green list. We now have 1015 articles in the list (yay!). On an additional note, two of the 'Hot 100' articles have recently been brought up to GA status: Margaret Atwood and Cleopatra.

I think it would be worth revisiting goals again. Does anyone have thoughts on what we should do next? Knope7 had suggested aiming to nominate at least 25 new GA articles in 2018, and I know a number of editors are working on that. I'm wondering if it would be possible to make this a more structured WikiProject, possibly with its own list of members? It might be easier to collaborate on GA articles about women (and encourage others to contribute) if it's a more formally organized project. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave Thanks for opening up this discussion. I think a members list might give us an idea of editors who are interested in collaboration. The biggest hurdle at this point, IMO, is getting articles reviewed. If we could figure out a way to facilitate that, it would be huge. I finally found someone to review Casco, but literally, I went around asking editors. Finally found someone who appreciated humor (I told him she'd waited a full term pregnancy). I wonder if we could reform the way that reviews happen, at least for articles on women. Placing the burden on one person for a review seems taxing for a volunteer program. In the real world, writers write, fact checkers verify information, editors check copy, proofreaders check grammar and punctuation, and reviewers evaluate. Is there a way that we can work together to review articles? Are there people who are interested specifically in reviewing?, writing?, fact checking/sourcing? etc. I guess what I am saying is just a list of members isn't sufficient. How do we identify those people who have skills which might best assist moving an article along in the process?

Thanks for starting this discussion, @Alanna the Brave:. It's an interesting idea. A potential drawback I see is whether it becomes a conflict for editors to rewiew each other's articles. It would probably be fine so long as project members are ok failing each other's articles if necessary. I am also slightly concerned that someone might decide to hassle members anytime we reveiw articles about women. I'm not against the idea of a members list and I would sign up. I think we should prepare for possible pushback.

More generally, one of the reasons I have been less active here is that I'm becoming frustrated with the Good Article process. I can name a few editors who are very particular with their reviews while other articles read the article and pass it if the article is reasonable and has several citations (doesn't matter if they are accurate, just that they are there). The gap in what is expected is enormous and you never know what is going to be exected until an editor picks your article to review. At some point, the GA distinction becomes meaningless. Knope7 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly the reason for my proposal that we "reinvent the wheel" so to speak, Knope7. Those drive-by reviews help no one and don't improve the encyclopedia. If we had members sign up for various parts of creating and reviewing, we could then post articles ready for various stages and move them along the process. In that way, by the time it was nominated for the final review, the risk of failure would be minimal. SusunW (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of project members working together to improve articles. It seems to me like maybe we would be setting our sights too low in nominating for GA when FA might become more appropriate. Risk of failure would be low, but we would have also exceeded what is needed to pass GA review by miles. Articles are currently being passed with entire paragraphs uncited, headings that do not match the content, talk page issues unresolved, etc. Either the editors over at GA need to start enforcing their own standards or we need to look elsewhere demonstrate quality. Knope7 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: and @Knope7:: I definitely agree that editors working together to prepare or review articles for higher standards (either GA or FA status) would be a good route to go down. The main issue for GA (other than inconsistent reviewers) seems to be the perpetual backlog at the GA-review department -- it doesn't matter how many nominations we create (or how much we collaborate in preparation) if they end up sitting there for six months or more before review. I'm not sure how we could help solve that, except by reviewing GA nominations ourselves. They want a single editor to be in charge of opening and closing a GA review, but they do suggest additional editors can add comments to reviews, so that could be one method for collaborating on the various aspects of GA reviews (one person checks facts, another comments on prose, another comments on images, etc). Looking at the criteria now, however, I'm wondering: what's the real difference between achieving GA and FA status, besides the different (and more collaborative) reviewing process? The criteria looks relatively similar, and the FA department has much less of a backlog. If we put our GA goals on the back burner and started working together to prepare articles for FA reviews instead, maybe that would be a more productive approach to future goals? Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Knope7 and Alanna the Brave:, I have zero clue how to do a FA. Am barely at the place where I am comfortable with GA, but I admit my standards are pretty high for submitting an article. From things I have read on FA, they want book citations, which are not always possible for women, though much easier to find on historic women (my favorites) than contemporary women. It also requires peer review. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help collaborate on these. I often struggle to write something with the detail and length required for GA without losing steam (and often, not getting the energy to try it in the first place), but very happy to help others if it's an area I know anything about. (I really wish there were people interested in things Oceania way; I've got a fairly solid personal library and I'm happy to spend a day in the State Library for this kind of thing but not so useful on European or US topics.) I'm also very happy to do GA reviews wherever necessary, so having somewhere prominent to note GAN would be useful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've never done a FA, but from what I've seen it's a pickier version of GA. @SusunW:, I've noticed your articles tend to be very thorough and carefully cited. I think your high standards would be a fit for FA if you ever decide to go that route. @The Drover's Wife:, I recently saw a four paragraph article passed at GA (it was technically a biography). That's part of what made me reach the conclusion that the GA standards have lost a lot of meaning. I'm not all that useful on Oceania topics, although I would be interested in giving it a try. My GA articles are mostly U.S. Cabinet Secretaries and 1 U.S. Supreme Court justice. I'd be happy to try and collaborate on an Oceania equivalent. @Alanna the Brave:, the long wait is one reason I suggested using nominations as a goal as those are are entirely within our control. I think reviewing nominees can help to get one's own article reviewed. My thinking on this project has been that the more active it becomes, the more people will find it and participate. You starting this discussion was a great step towards making this place more active. Kudos on that. I'm kind of ambivalent as to what the next step should be. I'll try to contribute to whatever the group decides. Knope7 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave: Thanks first of all for all your efforts and for reaching the one thousand mark on Women in Green GAs. I would certainly be prepared to cooperate on improving articles on women with a view to reaching GA or FA. Rather than just trying to reduce the backlog in the GA queue, I think it would be useful if we could create a set of articles on which we would like to collaborate, whether or not they have already been nominated for GA. We could start by creating a list of the women's biographies currently nominated for GA and perhaps provide an assessment of what still needs to be done on each one before it is really ready for an "official" GA review. We could then try to pick out two or three articles from the Hot 100 list which we are interested in improving in collaboration with others. Others interested could add their names. In this way, we might come up with a manageable list of 10 to 20 articles on which we could work together. At the same time, if any of the participants have written or identified other articles they would like to improve up to GA standard or beyond, they could also be added as Hotlist candidates. I think this would intensify interest in the general improvement of women's biographies, rather than just on GA reviews. Those of us involved in Women in Red, frequently come across new well drafted B-class articles which, with a little more attention, could easily make it to GA. Anyone interested in this line of approach?--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Knope7 yes, I have also had reviews where the file was passed without any questions, which seems bizarre. Every article can be improved somehow so that always feels to me that they didn't actually review it. I was told on my first good article that it had to be a minimum of 10,000 characters or 20,000 bytes to submit; that it had to have photos (sigh, my hardest thing besides technology); that harv style references were preferred; and that the lede must be an uncited summary of the cited material in the body. I see lots of files submitted that don't meet those standards, but it is what I shoot for.

The Drover's Wife We have 5 articles on the Women's Liberation Movement that we'd like to nominate. (A main summary and then 4 continental articles). We started it because it was nominated for deletion and poorly written. Since it is in effect the 50th anniversary of the movement, it would be cool to have them reviewed this year. Still tweaking them and have not yet nominated them, but if you are game to review, let me know. Pick anyone in Oceania and I'll be glad to collaborate. My only issues are finding sources there.

Ipigott Karen Blixen and Alice Paul would be 2 I'd be interested in working on. SusunW (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I like the sound of it, Ipigott. It looks like there are at least a couple of initial actions we could take, based off of discussion so far: (1) creating a basic members list, to establish who's interested in collaborating and attracting more collaborators, and (2) creating a more prominent 'GA Nominations' section, possibly on the main page, where we can track/assess/help improve current GA-nominated articles about women. Knope7: we could add a more visible link to your GA Goals Tracking page there too. How does that sound to everyone? Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott absolutely! Alanna the Brave sounds great! The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Alanna the Brave. I'm in. If we are going to designate what areas we are interested in, mine would be research and writing. (Along with research, of course is fact checking). SusunW (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I'll try to put something together over the next few days. Glad to see Karen Blixen is a candidate.--Ipigott (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I like Alanna the Brave's plan. I also think we should consider adding a quick disclaimer that all project members are encouraged (or agree) to follow the rules for nominating and reviewing Good Articles and will not promote articles without a good faith belief that they meet the criteria. Just to make our intentions clear that we are not looking for special treatment or promoting articles in bad faith. Knope7 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting idea, Knope7 -- I definitely think that's worth considering as the project develops further. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Alanna the Brave: As promised, I have begun a proposal on Women in Green collaboration. I hope you and other active members of the project will collaborate by adding to the lists and signing. When the list is a bit more mature, I'll move it to Women in Green and publicize it more widely.--Ipigott (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. I've just added to your list & signed! Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It'd be really useful with some of these if we could share pointers to any digitised resources (e.g. via Wikipedia Library Card) - I was so keen to work on Sirimavo Bandaranaike until I realised none of the biographies of her exist in any library in my state. I have a feeling this is going to be a bit of a problem for a few of these. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife This, though I am not sure you can access it, seems fairly thorough on her policies and archive.org has quite a few options to sort through [1]. Haven't started trying to pull any yet, but you might want to comb through them. SusunW (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding 2 names to Hot 100

Two articles from the Hot 100 were recently promoted to Good Article status. Most of the names on the Hot 100 are drawn from this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/People. I see a couple of women's names on the vital level 4 list that are missing from ours, but I haven't done an exhaustive review. I would definitely prefer to try and pick women from fields or backgrounds that are underrepresented on our current list. Knope7 (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to see some more Asian names - there's particularly few in a very US/Europe-dominated list. Indira Gandhi, Corazon Aquino or Benazir Bhutto would be great as far as important leaders go, but a non-politician or two would be good too. Also Sirimavo Bandaranaike - the world's first female head of government and often overlooked. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with all of those The Drover's Wife. I'm not too sure we follow anyone else's list Knope7, the systemic biases in creating them are real. When one can compare the importance in history of someone like Simón Bolivar to the lack of English-speaking sports personnel, it's clear that there is a problem. I'd like to see more Caribbean and Latina names as well some that readily come to mind are Hilda Bynoe, Pearlette Louisy, Juana Inés de la Cruz, Clara González, Ángela Acuña Braun SusunW (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would be worth aiming to have a list with equal numbers of women from each of the different continents (i.e. North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania)? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd love that and if anyone is interested, I am going to start work on Vera Gedroitz. She fits WiR's editathons on Russia and LGBT this month and clearly is a notable figure. The existing article is in bad shape and needs attention. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hot 100 is almost exclusively derived from the Vital articles list I linked. I am sure. Knope7 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Members List

Knope7, SusunW, The Drover's Wife and Ipigott -- I've just created a 'Members' section on the Women in Green homepage to current list active participants (structure borrowed from the WP Women list). Does that look all right?  :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave: Good idea to start a participants list. I suggest you post something along these lines on the talk pages of WikiProject Women in Red as well as WikiProject Women and its affiliates, explaining that active collaboration could help to bring about major improvements to women's biographies and articles on women's works.--Ipigott (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Now there's an idea -- I'm on it! Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom during World War I?

Is there a reason this is listed as one of the "Good Articles about women"? It doesn't seem to focus on women; certainly mentions women, but in no more than a small fraction of the article. --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

GRuban remove it if you think that it doesn't belong. SusunW (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Vera Gedroitz

I have expanded this from a stub and think that it could easily be ready for GA. I read, but did not translate anything from either the Russian or French articles because both seem to be based primarily upon the book by Vladimir Georgievich Khokhlov to which I have no access. Other than the name of her first partner, I believe I was able to locate sufficient sources to substantiate most of the information contained therein. IMO, the article needs a copyedit, someone to review images and add whatever might be appropriate, and finally establishment of what her surname should be. Detailed English sources by Bennett, Rappaport and Wilson call her Gedroits, whereas those who mention her in passing—Abade, Pruitt, Whelan, use Gedroitz. I am not a linguist, thus am unsure. I also did not include detailed information on her surgical procedures, which can be found in Blokhina. If anyone thinks those are necessary for the article, they can certainly be added. In light of WiR's editathon's this month being on both Russia and LGBT, I would like to complete the nomination this month. Any help would be greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Made some copy edits. May do more tomorrow. If there are any you disagree with (especially my clearly irrational preference for the occasional subject-verb-object sentence, without preceding adverbial phrase!), feel free to revert, at worst we'll discuss on the talk page. It's a great piece of work. --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

GRuban Thank you so much. This one was a lot of translation, so I noticed that I went back and forth between verb tenses, which drives me insane. After a while, I cannot even see my own mistakes and it's easier to just ask for help ;) There are tons of photos in commons, but I can never figure out which ones to use. SusunW (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I made a few additional copy-edits throughout. Looks good! I also have a quick question: in the 'Schooling abroad' section, you write "He advised that her sister "Sasha" had died from tuberculosis" -- but who was Sasha? I assume that's a nickname for one of her sisters, but you don't say which one. I can take a look at photos tomorrow -- you're right that the Commons has plenty of material, and I think incorporating at least one or two more photos would help complete the article. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Alanna the Brave I have no idea on Sasha, the source didn't say. Am hoping that Ipigott the linguist and polyglot of WiR will have some insight on that and the whole what to name the article question. Feel free to input any images you like. SusunW (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Alexandra. Sasha is short for Alexandra or Alexander. Likely your source thought this self evident, the way that Bob is short for Robert or Meg for Margaret. (Which are also not obvious to non native speakers, of course.) --GRuban (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GRuban. I changed it to show that Sasha and Alexandra were the same. SusunW (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

: On the name, I don't think we should use "Gedroitz" (with a Z). The Library of Congress Authority File gives "Gedroĭt︠s︡, V. I. (Vera Ignatʹevna)", which is also used by OCLC. The file contains interesting notes, including the fact that Sergei was her deceased brother. Google book searches give twice as many hits on "Vera Gedroits" as compared to "Vera Gedroitz". Her name is in fact Lithuanian (from Giedroyć and the town of Giedraičiai) but influenced by Russian and Ukrainian. It may be useful to include a subsection (or perhaps just a note) in the article on her name and its variants. I would prefer "Vera Gedroits" for the title of the article, mentioning "Gedroitz" as an alternative. Then there should be lots of redirects. I'll now have a closer look at this fascinating article.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

While the article is already very detailed, it might be useful to draw further on the French version which has already achieved GA status. It contains a number of additional well referenced details and many pertinent illustrations. I find it very surprising, by the way, that none of G's works has been translated.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott I agree on the name, as the weight of the English sources gives Gedroits, I just wasn't sure linguistically. You have confirmed my gut instinct, so I think we move it and change the name throughout the article. I found it very interesting that all the present English sources indicate her work was lost to the west, but the 1915 wound book in English, clearly indicated her work was known in the west. If you think we can pull in things from the French article, please do. You know it is my worst language, but I got the impression it was a translation of the Russian article. As I have no access to the biography on which it was based, there is no way to confirm the information. Maybe you can find an accessible copy or we can AGF that the material is as presented and just add a translation flag to the talk page. SusunW (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

SusunW: You seem to be right about the French article being a translation of the Russian - which is also a GA. They are almost identical. I can of course read the French much more easily. I'll go through the French and pick out any important details which seem worthwhile. Such items can frequently be found in other reliable sources. Let's see.--Ipigott (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott Thanks! That would be fabulous. I moved the article and think I got the name changed throughout. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a bot we can run that will put the citations in correct numeric order within the text or is that a manual process? I must say, this is really lovely to have so many helping hands :) SusunW (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know of any bot for this. I've now finished adding my bits and pieces. In general, the English article is even more detailed than the Russian or French. Although there are reports that some of her works were published in French, German or Swedish, I have not been able to find any traces. There are also reports that her university thesis was published in French. Can anyone help to find it?--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I really tried to find enough information to make up for the lack of access to that biography and was thrilled that I found medical analysis in both English and Russian, showing the import of her work. I found one source on archive.org in German, but it was little gossipy snippets, not a translation of any of her works. I guess I will start paragraph by paragraph sorting the refs in order. SusunW (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the widely cited achievements of Gedroits was her development of laparotomy. The term does not appear in the article. Can this be rectified? See [2], [3], [4], [5].--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I see that there is in fact one instance of laparotomies - but her achievements here should probably be emphasized.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott Apparently prevailing wisdom at the time was to leave the patient in a semi-reclining position and allow them to seep (I had images in my head of poor patients bleeding out). I added a bit more detail about it, if you think it needs more, please feel free to add. I think I renumbered everything, ugh totally dizzying all that up down refresh, but I may have missed something. Of course, if we add other info, will have to be checked again, but that is the nature of the beast :) SusunW (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

SusunW: Thanks for all your additional efforts. I just wonder whether "Gedroits was one of the first to perform laparotomies on military patients." is sufficiently strong. It really looks as if she was more than just "one of the first" to be recognized for adopting laparotomy in the field. Do you think we could say something like "Gedroits is remembered as a pioneer in applying laparotomy for the treatment of abdominal wounds on the battle front."?--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott absolutely. I think there is definitely evidence of that. SusunW (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we are done, except for Alanna the Brave picking out images and then making any final adjustments to the text, etc. Thank you all for the help. Looks pretty amazing and such an improvement from the stub we started with. SusunW (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi SusunW -- did you see the audio clip on the Commons of Gedroits' name being pronounced? [6] Is that something you might like to use? I think it's been used in other language versions of the article. I'll finish up with images later today. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave I have never used a pronunciation audio, but it's kind of cool. I wondered about that little speaker on her article, because when I first started I tried to push it and nothing happened. Can you fix it so that you hear the audio on her article? (I am sorry, I truly am technically inept with WP.) SusunW (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It took some technological wrestling, but I think I've figured out how to add the audio. It works! Yay! :-D Just looking through pictures now... Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm all finished with images. I think the only thing left to do is for someone to take one last sweep for typos, unnecessary commas, et cetera (it might be a good idea to take a break for a day or two before doing this). Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we are probably done. I did a few more alt-name redirects, @GRuban and Ipigott: tweaked the text. I think the images look great Alanna the Brave, so, I'm going to nominate it in Biology and medicine. Question is do we know someone, preferably who can review the Russian sourcing, who can review it? Of course, it can just sit there and wait, but the language will probably hold it up and I would like to have her featured on DYK in pride month. SusunW (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Browsing through the GA Nominations page, and reviewer User:Kaiser matias appears to speak intermediate Russian. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And we passed! @GRuban, Ipigott, and Alanna the Brave: have any brilliant ideas for a hook for DYK? I have done the QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Celia Brackenridge, but we need a hook and a nomination. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So many choices, so tempting to throw them all in at once. Did you know "...that Vera Gedroits was the first Russian female military surgeon, a princess, a good author, a bad poet, a lesbian, married a man, introduced new ways to perform abdominal surgery, and trained the Tsarina and her daughters as nurses?" The mind boggles. --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

GRuban, I totally love that :)! SusunW (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is 200 (if you count ... and ?) characters, the maximum allowed ...that Princess Vera Gedroits—good author, but bad poet; lesbian but married a man; doctor but taught nursing to royals—was the 1st Russian female military surgeon & pioneered battlefield laparotomy? Too much? SusunW (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well done, Susun. How about simplifying as: "... that Princess Vera Gedroits pioneered abdominal surgery in a medical train on the Russo-Japanese front?"--Ipigott (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well I will do them both and we'll see what happens. :) Ipigott did you see that our Carmen Casco de Lara Castro was finally cleared as GA as well? Busy month. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Done Template:Did you know nominations/Vera Gedroits. Again, I just want to reiterate how much fun this collaboration has been. I truly enjoyed working on her as a team. SusunW (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I enjoyed helping out! I think this went really well. Looking forward to more collaboration in the future. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm glad Vanamonde93 took so much time and trouble in reviewing Vera Gedroits. The article has certainly benefited from the adjustments made. I'm glad GRuban participated so actively too. The one thing that doesn't seem to have been sorted out was the cause of Sergei's death. In the Maire article, we learn of "la mort accidentelle de son frère préféré, Serguéï". So it certainly looks as if he died in an accident rather than from illness. As the article has progressed so well, it may really be worthwhile having another go at improving the prose and going for FA. Anyone interested?--Ipigott (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about the FA process, but I'm willing to learn. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott I have never done such a thing and have no idea how we do that. I'm game, but someone else will have to take the lead to do it and guide us through the process. I think we will have to somehow secure that biography on her, which is an impossibility for me here in Mexico. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you have done a FA Ian, if you want to guide us through the process, the rest of us can learn while we go. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Vera Gedroits is featured on the main page DYK! High five, all.  :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

July collaboration?

I was, however, perusing our list of proposed collaborations with an eye to next month's topic on WiR of Women in stage and screen. The two on that list which meet the criteria are Josephine Baker and Margot Fonteyn. Baker's talk page leads me to believe that it would be contentious to work on her, but I'd be game for Fonteyn, if anyone is interested. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Margot Fonteyn certainly deserves far better coverage than she has at the moment. We first need to hit GA, then perhaps FA later. FA isn't as bad as all that. The main problem is making sure all the images are OK. There are plenty of people who could help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I found tons of references for her in archive.org. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither are in my realm of expertise, but I would be happy to support with some clean-up. Knope7 (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to pitch in again. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott, Knope7, and Alanna the Brave: Yay! This looks like it'll be good. I perused what is there yesterday. Basically there is very little sourcing on it. Most of what was there was sourced to her autobiography, which per WP is not independent and unreliable as a source. There are tons of references here and one is the "definitive biography" by Meredith Daneman. If you don't have an account for archive.org, it is free and will allow you to check out things for 14 days. I found her Oxford bio yesterday and figured I could work that in to give an outline, that we can enhance with other sources. SusunW (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather busy these days but I'll pitch in when I have time.--Ipigott (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

SusunW - I could help with some of the research/writing this time if you like, but I think I'd need to upgrade my Wiki-citation skills first. Most of the articles I've worked on in the past have used only the basic "reflist" template, without separate Bibliography & Citations sections, and I'm uncertain how to incorporate that kind of formatting/coding. Would you say it's fairly straightforward to pick up? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave Really simple if you do it from the get-go, maddeningly frustrating to do it after there are tons of citations. ;) I find harv ref much simpler, as one doesn't have to read "around" the citations. I use the template to format the citations, just pull it down and fill in what I know. Then add |ref=harv or {{harvid|publisher in lieu of no author|date|page=}} in the bibliography section. In the text, the format is {{sfn|author or publisher|year|page}} And yay! I think I have gotten it restructured and removed a bunch of cruft, but am still trying to find cites for some of the details. I am at the Nureyev years... SusunW (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You also might want to install harv-error gadget which will tell you in impossibly screaming red if you didn't link up the reference to the citation properly ;) SusunW (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm -- I'll check that out today! Thanks. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave I've worked it through her death. Still a bunch of things in it that either need citations or need to go. Still need to work the legacy portion to get rid of the bullet points, find citations, and get it to smooth prose. I barely looked at Monahan and Daneman (they are already in the bibliography, so you only need to cite the pages {{sfn|Daneman|2005|p=}} or {{sfn|Monahan|1957|p=}}), as I was trying to fill in the missing citations and primarily incorporate the Oxford biography, which is a subscription source. The others are freely accessible, as is this bio of Ashton, who was one of her principal choreographers. We may need a section that talks about her artistry and why she elevated to such heights, but I think I am not qualified to do that. Maybe you or @Ipigott and Knope7: can assess that. SusunW (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic work SusunW: I'll look at it more carefully tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, it's looking great. I'll read through the Daneman and Monahan sources this week and see if I can mine some more info from them. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave thanks for going through the Daneman book! The article is looking so much better than when we started ;) I have tried to find citations on all the missing info and I think we are down to 2 without reliable sources. If we cannot find documentation, those will need to go. @Ipigott and Knope7: anyone want to take a go at finding those citations, copyediting for smoother text, verifying the photos are properly licensed, or adding something on her artistry before we submit? SusunW (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we've done very well expanding the article (despite my somewhat uneven bursts of input!). :-) I haven't been able to find either of those two pieces of unsourced information in Daneman. Have you checked newspaper archives for the quote by Terry Wogan? Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave Newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, hathitrust, archive.org, jstor, EBSCO in a variety of searches. Everywhere the quotes come up, they appear to be mirrors of WP, not an actual reliable secondary source. I even checked the Times and Guardian archives at Gale. I'm out of ideas, unless someone searching in another google gets a different result. I know that searching from Mexico I get different results than people would in say the UK or Canada. SusunW (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

SusunW I'm sure you've scoured the Internet well -- I think you have more advanced search skills than me, and I've got no other suggestions, unfortunately. It's always frustrating when there's a piece of information that doesn't seem to have originated from anywhere (Mars, perhaps??). Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave My guess is they heard it, maybe in a video, documentary or something? No idea. I did finally find the A to Z quote, though it was not "quoted" accurately. I find articles that state there is a Fonteyn Court at Parson's Field too, but none say that it is named after Dame Margot. It could just as easily be named after her brother, if we cannot find a source for it. The Wogan quote, I thought surely I'd find, but I totally come up with nothing. I've searched with Wogan, Fonteyn; Wogan, the Magic of Dance; Wogan review of Fonteyn, etc. Nada. SusunW (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• SusunW Alanna the Brave: I've been through the Margot Fonteyn article for copy editing. I'm really impressed with the amount of detail it now contains. The main remaining problem in American vs British English. As lots of the syntax and spellings are more American than English, I changed quite a few honours to honors, etc. I see however most of the dates are British. If you would prefer British English throughout, let me know and I'll make the changes. I see her OBE decoration is mentioned twice in the article. We still need a three-paragraph lead. Perhaps you can add a draft for me to tidy up, Susun? I'm sorry I have not been able to spend more time on this but I have been busy with lots of other things.--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. If you think we are pretty much done with the body, I can do a summary for the lede. Absolutely think it should be in British English, but that is impossible for me. With my student in York, I use spellcheck to fix it. Would that WP had such a feature ;) . SusunW (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

SusunW: I'll go through it for British English then. You can by the way created a version of Firefox for British spelling, etc., but that might complicate things for you.--Ipigott (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Very much it would complicate things, Ipigott LOL. My poor student is Mexican, learned American English, so it is really hard for him. Even punctuation is different in British English. We just went through his PhD proposal reversing all the quotation marks, who knew that single marks are used for a quotation and double for a quote within a quote. Exactly the opposite of US. It is confusing ;) SusunW (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and Ipigott I have no idea what the difference in an "ordinary" commander and a "dame" commander is, but the notices from the Gazette, show they were awarded at different times, thus clearly different distinctions. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, lede is done. Anyone please feel free to modify it. So much information to summarize--uff. I also took out the two remaining uncited statements. They can always be added if a source surfaces. So, down to final copyediting and the photograph reviews, I think. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought that it might be nice to have photos with all of her partners and added one with Helpmann from commons. There is not one there with Somes, but I found this [7] It was published in the US in 1957 and the magazine went defunct in 1964. Clearly falls within the "between 1923 and 1977" range, but what we need to know is if it was published with a copyright notice or if the magazine after it folded renewed any copyright it might have had. Anyone know how to research that? There is a copy of the magazine at The University of Texas 2 miles from Megalibrarygirl, so I have asked her if she might be able to look on the inside cover to determine who the photographer was and if there is a copyright notice on the image. I don't know how we go about researching the magazine's rights. Anyone have ideas? SusunW (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: I can visit their library later or maybe get a librarian on the phone to look for me. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks Megalibrarygirl :) SusunW (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And a question...@Ipigott, Knope7, and Alanna the Brave: I didn't even look at that section called "Main Stage Roles", which I just noticed. Do we need to cite it? I cannot imagine that an uncited list would be acceptable, but that is my academic take. I think there is a chronological list in {{sfn|Monahan|1957|p=}} for her early career. Megalibrarygirl any luck on the photo? SusunW (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

SusunW I tried to get a librarian to help me without going over there, but it wasn't productive. I think I'll have to stop by and visit which I can probably do next week. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: Is this keeping you back from sending out the invitations for August? Even if it is, I think it would be good to send them out today or tomorrow as I'm pretty sure many of our members would like to prepare for the Monthly Achievement Initiative. Once the invitations go out to our members, I also intend to contact other wikiprojects and individual editors who have participated in initiatives such as our challenges and the World Contest. Let me know if there is anything specific you need help with and I'll see what I can do. You might also like to communicate our August events to Signpost.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

She sent them Ipigott, apparently there was some glitch. She posted a notice on Women in Red. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I've posted on the Village Pump. I'm not sure if I should resend or not until it's figured out. I don't want to annoy people who did get the invite by spamming them. For example, I got it and so did a few others, but I have no idea what percentage received the invite or how to figure that out. Hopefully the advice at Village Pump will help. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: Apparently you used the wrong list. It's the kind of thing we all do from time to time, so don't worry about it. Just send it out to the full opt in list today and everything should be OK. There's still plenty of time for everyone to prepare for August.--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott, Knope7, and Alanna the Brave: Rather than have that uncited section of her performances, which did not seem to indicate why any of the roles were selected, I have drafted List of performances by Margot Fonteyn I managed to enter her first twenty years (thanks to Monahan). On Fonteyn's article, I took out anything which was not a premier/debut performance, though admittedly, at this point after 3 days I have only gotten to 1957. Meaning, I have yet to tackle any of her partnership with Nureyev. If anyone wants to help, feel free. We cannot use IMDB as a reliable source, though it clearly gives info which can be substantiated elsewhere, i.e. newspapers and performances listed in the article already after 1957 can just be transferred to the list. There is also this filmography of Ashton, which lists some of her work SusunW (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Useful list, nicely complementing the Fonteyn article. You're doing such a good job on it, Susun, that I think we should leave it in your hands for the time being.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you need an extra pair of hands, I can help, but you may need to clarify the criteria for me (I'm not overly familiar with the dance world). What counts as a premiere/debut performance? Is it the first time a specific ballet company puts on a specific show? Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave Thanks!!! I had no idea it would be over 500 performances when I started. Uffff! I'll finish the dance part, have a system working. If you could work on the film and TV that would help a lot. (FYI, a debut can be either the first time a performer did a role, the first time the company did it, or the first time the piece was ever performed) SusunW (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

And @Megalibrarygirl and We hope: are freaking awesome! Sue took the photos of the title page and cover. With that information We hope was able to confirm that the photographer never copyrighted the image and the magazine failed to renew their copyright!!!! It takes a village. SusunW (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave and Ipigott: I'm finished (or as finished as I am going to be) with the dance stuff in the performance list. I added more info to the bio (Grace Kelly/Prince Rainier wedding, LBJ inauguration) etc. and the premiers, so someone should probably proof the article one more time. I did a lot of work on the photos and I think they all pass muster. If either of you can proof it one more time and Alanna if you want to input the TV/film stuff on the list, I think we're pretty much done. If the list doesn't get finished, I guess it doesn't matter, as it won't be in the nominated article, but I've worked on it solidly for 5 days and am exhausted by the effort ;) SusunW (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, I've been preoccupied today and yesterday with a separate GA project (Frances Gertrude McGill is currently being reviewed), but I'll aim to put some final work into Margot Fonteyn and the list of her performances over the weekend. What would you say to submitting the GA nomination on Monday? Give yourself a rest for now (and a pat on the back!). :-P Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave Thanks. A lot of performances. Glad you got McGill worked up and under review. :) Also one more TV reference [8]. I think if we can give it a final once-over, Monday is good. SusunW (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

SusunW: I'm pretty busy today but I'll try to find time to go through it again tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott, no worries. I'll be out this afternoon too. Real world function to attend. SusunW (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Looks to me as if it's ready for a GA review. Well done, both of you.--Ipigott (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for proofing it Ian. Will leave it for a day and nominate it tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination is in. Hopefully someone will pick it up for review fairly soon. SusunW (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Woah - a reviewer has snatched it up already. That was fast! Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Woot! We'll just need to keep an eye on it and answer the questions. :) SusunW (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave and Ipigott: you may need to step into the review. I am being asked for things I know nothing about: templates for British English? Peers in the ballet world? I am confused by the review at this point, as it has focused on things like layout and style which don't seem to be part of GA criteria. I am used to questions asking for clarifications of data, or minor editing, corrections, or source explanations, but this is quite different. Maybe it has to do with the fact that she is famous and I usually only focus on people who are merely notable? SusunW (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, I think I know where to find the "British English" template mentioned by the reviewer -- I'll add it to the Talk page now. I don't know what to say about the "peers" question or the section headings though. Some of the requests made by the reviewer do appear to be a matter of personal preference. If necessary, I think it would be reasonable to request a second opinion from another GA reviewer. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave thanks! We'll play it by ear for now, just don't be surprised if I ping you again. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave and Ipigott: Yay it passed. Anyone want to tackle the DYK nomination? SusunW (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• @SusunW and Alanna the Brave: Congratulations! I'm really sorry, Susun, that I did not have time to help this along yesterday evening but I was not at home. In any case, you seem to have been able to take care of most of the changes yourself. Now that you have carried out quite a bit of research on him, may I suggest you put together a short biography of Felix, with a blue link from the MF article. As for the long dashes (i.e. em dashes), when they are used in running text, they should not be separated from the surrounding words by spaces. See here. Dashes are generally preferred to hyphens for punctuating running text. I agree with you that some of the queries in the review were rather unusual but I have a feeling the reviewer, a relatively recent editor, was finding his own depth. I was nevertheless pleased to see he was taking a genuine interest in the article. It's always good to have new reviewers as the long backlog can be discouraging. I think I'll add a word of appreciation on his talk page. Alanna seems pretty good at DYK hooks. Perhaps she can come up with one for Margot. And now that this one has made the mark, have either of you earmarked anything for August?--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll do some pondering today and come up with a few DYK hook suggestions. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave and Ipigott: Thanks for working on the DYK Alanna. Not to worry Ian. I felt I was out of my depth with it, sort of like the first GA I ever did. For August, see below, as Women in Red's topic is indigenous women, I'm working on Wilma Mankiller. Another article that was in dismal shape and in serious need of attention. SusunW (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty — SusunW, below are a couple of DYK hooks we could go with. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

1. "Did you know that English ballerina Margot Fonteyn danced with the Royal Ballet for 44 years, was appointed prima ballerina assoluta by Queen Elizabeth II, and then became a cattle rancher in Panama?"
2. "Did you know that English prima ballerina Margot Fonteyn was performing in the Netherlands when the Nazis invaded in May 1940, forcing her to flee the country with nothing more than the costume she was wearing?"

ThanksAlanna the Brave, I'll try to get a review done ASAP and get it nominated. SusunW (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay done Template:Did you know nominations/Margot Fonteyn SusunW (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Michaelina Wautier

I see that this celebrated Baroque painter is currently in the limelight as a result of the retrospectives now being held in Antwerp. Unfortunately the English Wikipedia article about her is very scanty while the Dutch one is far better developed. Would anyone be interested in contributing to improvements? Maybe Jane023 could also lend a helping hand. Also known as "Michaelina Woutiers". There's some interesting background on her here. I'll see what I can contribute myself over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I had no idea! I hope they can find the other two evangelist paintings. Her article looks pretty good now to me, especially considering she was still lost in 1905 when the Women Painters of the World assigned her self-portrait to someone else. For a truly scanty article, try breaking your head on this colleague of hers: Madonna Fitta de Milano. Jane (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I created a Wikidata list for her paintings. Not all of them are article worthy (would have to have access to the catalog for that) but a few are very well documented (such as the ones in Vienna, the one recently auctioned, and the one in Seatte). User:Jane023/Paintings by Michaelina Wautier is what I made today and there are still a few more to do. Having read the whole Seattle blog I think a few more can be reattributed that are currently attributed to Jacob van Oost. Jane (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Jane023: Thanks for preparing this useful list so quickly and for improving Commons coverage. I suggest you move the list to mainspace as soon as possible so that we can provide a link from the biography and perhaps start working on articles about some of her paintings.--Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Linked from her article. Jane (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

And the art historian has a page now too ;) Jane (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Ida Tarbell

I'm working away on the Ida Tarbell entry still researching, but I came across this lovely quote/advice from her on writing biography (or Women in Green articles?) that I thought I'd share, "One should start by wiping out of his mind all that he knows about the man, start as if you had never before heard of him. Everything then is fresh, new. Your mind, feeding on this fresh material, sees things in a new way. You are making an acquaintance of one who, if he is worth writing about, grows more interesting to you whatever he has done or not done as time goes on."

This how I feel about Tarbell after spending the last few weeks on her. Every day I've learned something interesting about her. Jaldous1 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Jaldous1, love the quote (except the gendered connotation). It's how I feel about every biography I work on. I learn far more about the subject and it is a bit like exploration, making discoveries as you go. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ida Tarbell ready for review

I finished my research and update on Ida Tarbell. I'd be glad to have some folks on the project review it. I do have a question about the lede paragraphs and how much citation goes there if you are referencing an item that has a citation in the main text. Do you give it a citation in both places or just in the main part of the article? The user formerly known as Jaldous1 and now known as...--Auldhouse (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Auldhouse -- to the best of my knowledge, you don't need to cite any information in the lede as long as that information has already been cited properly in the main part of the article. The Wikipedia Manual of Style page suggests that decision is left up to the editors (citing info in the lede is neither required nor prohibited). I'm happy to take a look at Ida Tarbell tomorrow and provide some proofreading/copy editing assistance if I can. Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Auldhouse repeating what Alanna the Brave said, my mentors, Dr. Blofeld (the most prolific article creator on EN-WP) and Montanabw, indicated that the lede should be a summary of already cited materials. The only time a citation is needed in the lede is if a direct quote is used. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Auldhouse – I went through the article, and here are my thoughts. It's looking pretty good at this point. I've made some copy-edits throughout for grammar, punctuation, et cetera, and I think it's almost ready to be nominated for GA, but there are some things that you may need to address first:

• You've picked out some great photos (I especially like the Pennsylvania Oil Fields, and the photos of Tarbell and McClure's Magazine), but I think you have too many images overall — it can end up feeling rather cluttered and distracting. You probably don't need images of the people Tarbell wrote about in her biographies (e.g. Roland, Boneparte, and the formal Lincoln portrait). I'd suggest reviewing the images and weeding out the less impactful ones.

Be sure that you have verified the copyright information on the photos. Some of the images in commons have scanty information and tags to confirm copyright data. These will be pulled from your GA if they are found to be lacking. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• In the 'Early life and education section', you mention "the SIC". Does that stand for South Improvement Company? You should include that acronym sooner and more clearly next to the full name

• Although you have some fabulous quotations in this article (e.g. Tarbell's "biography on a gallop"), I think you should be wary of relying too heavily on quotes as a whole. Some quotes don't add much to the article, especially if they're located in the lede paragraph. I noticed you put quotation marks around "feminist" in the lede, which makes the word seem false or highly uncertain.

• You have at least a couple of areas in the article where information has been repeated and/or partially uncited (possibly left over from the original article): the founding of the American Magazine, and the beginning of World War I.

• It may just be me, but I found the 'Women's suffrage' section a little vague and confusing, possibly because Tarbell's feminism was rather ambiguous in itself. I think it could benefit from another read-through, and possibly some re-writes/re-organization of content. Try not to rely too heavily on quotations about Tarbell, especially at the very beginning of the section. Provide us with lots of objective evidence.

• I noticed that you've organized your citations via a single basic "References" list, but you've created duplicate citations in order to cite many different page sections from a single book source (e.g. "Weinberg, Steve, Taking on the trust: the epic battle of Ida Tarbell and John D. Rockefeller"). I'm not an expert, but that strikes me as unusual. SusunW, do you think this could present any issues for a GA nomination, or is this an acceptable way to format citations?

I am not really good with technology; however, the format I was taught is the Harvard referencing, which allows you to cite a source once and subsequently add page numbers throughout the article. You can see the referencing as it appears on Margot Fonteyn. Early on, I was nailed for duplicate citations and improper referencing to specific pages. The citation style is fairly simple, in that you simply use a standard citation, such as {{Cite book |ref=harv |last=Weinberg |first=Steve |title=Taking on the trust: the epic battle of Ida Tarbell and John D. Rockefeller |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/154706823 |publisher=W.W. Norton |date=2008 |isbn=9780393049350|edition=1st|location=New York|pages=only needed in citation if you are citing a separate chapter only or a journal article from a larger work|oclc=154706823}} and add the anchor |ref=harv to the citation as I did. Some do it at the end, I do it immediately following the cite book, etc. In the body, you render the citation as {{sfn|Weinberg|2008|p=? or pp=?}}. If there is no author (or so many that it doesn't render properly) for the piece, add the anchor |ref={{harvid|publisher|date|p=? or pp=?}}. I am pretty OCD, so I always list the author immediately following the anchor in a citation followed by the title, so that the bibliography can be alphabetized, as it makes it much easier to find the citation. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• At the very end, you mention that Tarbell's brother, Will, came to live on her property. Are you referring to Walter? That's the only living brother you'd mentioned previously.

• The 'Writing style and methodology' section is tiny. I would suggest either expanding it (you have relevant info about Tarbell's writing style elsewhere in the article) or deleting it and moving the existing quotation somewhere else.

• The External Links section is extremely long, and I'm wondering if it might benefit from some weeding. You may want to go through it, pick out the strongest/most interesting items, and remove the rest.

I concur, external links should be minimal. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful -- let me know if you have questions. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all so much. This is great feedback. I went ahead and pulled it from the Good Article Review until I've fixed these items. I'm getting married next week--so I may have only a few quiet mornings to work on this, but full speed ahead in August. I'll let you know when I'm done, but if anyone has any other feedback I'd appreciate it. And I will re-work those citations and try that method. I tend to work out of books, so having a better understanding of how to use the citations correctly is key. Also thank you to Alanna the Brave for the copyedit. --Auldhouse (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations Auldhouse! If you need help with the citations, just ping me. (2 "u"s no "a") SusunW (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you SusunW! Auldhouse (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

A quick update on this. I converted citations, fixed the graphics, cut some quotations, etc. I still need to redo the sections on feminism and writing methodology and then cut the external links area. Those are next on my list. I also had dream wedding and now readying teens for return to school. :-) Auldhouse (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like you're having a good month, Auldhouse! :-D Glad to hear everything is going well, both online and offline. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I completed fixes and now will submit it officially for a GA review. --Auldhouse (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

New GA nominations section?

Hey everyone: a little while back, we discussed the idea of adding a more prominent 'GA nominations' section to the Women in Green main page, where we could track currently nominated articles about women and women's works (regardless of whether or not those articles were nominated by WiG project members). Do you still like this idea? I think it would make it easier for us to keep our list of successful GA articles up to date, and it might also encourage some new editors to start reviewing GA articles (we could provide links to the GA review instructions, the GA help desk, etc.). I've created a drafted 'GA nominations' section, just to provide an example of what it might look like. As per Knope7's earlier suggestion, I added a brief disclaimer, and I also included a link to Knope7's 2018 Goal Tracking list. What do you think? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I like it. I'm all for anything that makes it easier. I often forget to add things to lists, and it would be lovely if we could figure out a way to have it automated. On Women in Red, there is an article alert that tells you about project articles which have been nominated. Wonder if there is a way to modify that alert? We have to be careful that we don't indicate that anyone's work is part of the project if they didn't indicate that. But, simply adding anyones' work to a list saying you could help by reviewing surely would be appreciated? I know I would appreciate it. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm! I like the idea of automating the list, although I'm not sure how we would do that. Pinging other project members to join the conversation: @Ipigott:, @Knope7:, @The Drover's Wife:, @Auldhouse:, @Habst:, @LovelyLillith:, @Noto-Ichinose:, @Sportsfan77777:, @SunnyBoi:, @MWright96:, @Originalmess:. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes please! The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Headbomb is the one who did the alerts for Women in Red. Perhaps they can help. SusunW (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Great concept, and the examples are easy to read. I agree that it's important to show whether pages are part of the project, as it might not fit with the motivations of other editors? Thank you for thinking of this! SunnyBoi (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's do it! Noto-Ichinose

I'm all for the idea. MWright96 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Awesome. I've added a couple of sentences to clarify that not all articles were edited and/or nominated by members of Women in Green. At a certain point, I think it might be worth creating a Women in Green project tag to put on article talk pages. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Also, I just happened to be looking for a WiG project tag to put on the talk page of the article I was working on - so good timing, would love to see that made! LovelyLillith (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have had a go at adding a subscription to the article alerts bot, which can then be added to the project page here. If and when it runs successfully, I'll put it on the main project page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ritchie333! I'll be very interested to see the result. Does it track WP Women articles specifically? Something we might have to consider is the fact that some GA nominated articles about women are not yet tagged with WP Women (or any affiliated projects, e.g. WP Women Artists). Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've defined it as anything tagged in WikiProject Women in one form or another. I think it ought to be possible to expand it to include other projects or tags, but I'll see if the basics work when the bot runs tomorrow morning. On a related note, I added Haim (band) to the list of GAs, it's not a biography of a woman per se but an article about a group of three sisters. What do we do with groups of women? Depending on which source you read, The Unthanks could have a strong claim to belong here (if somebody improved the article to GA); though the group is mixed gender, the members that get the most coverage in sources are the two sisters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ritchie333. I think works by women, groups of women, things women created or operated are all included, just like at Women in Red. I'd also be in favor of including non-binary people as the point is to improve coverage on those gendered groups who are typically ignored by the encyclopedia. SusunW (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the list is now up. A few niggles need to be ironed out in the long-term, but it should be good enough for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Awesome. That list is definitely missing a few nominations, but I'm up for trying it out. I've added the text from my original draft, just as an explanation/disclaimer. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a fantastic addition. --Auldhouse (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hellknowz has fixed the configuration for the alert bot; in the meantime I have now put Karen Carpenter up for a GA nomination so I would expect the page to update some time in the next 24 hours or thereabouts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Thanks for doing that! I wondered when you would do Carpenter, after I found you that book :) Like Alanna the Brave I think weare missing some, i.e. my nom on 24 July of Eusebia Cosme is missing. Any idea why? SusunW (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I do - it doesn't have {{WPWomen}} on the talk page, though it does have {{WikiProject Women's History}}. I've asked about this on the parallel thread here. And thank you for pointing me towards that Randy Schmidt biography, it was an excellent (if ultimately rather sad and poignant) read. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Woot! thanks again, typically, project tagging goes if it is for a woman born before 1950, Women's History and if born after 1950, Women, so yes, it really does need to include both. Glad you were able to use the book. I love that archive.org book lending thingy. SusunW (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW:, @Alanna the Brave: Right, I think I've fixed the alert bot subscription so it will do both WikiProject Women and WikiProject Women's History articles together. It should update by around 10:00UTC tomorrow morning; when it does, could you check that your GA nominations are now visible? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Thanks. So now my $10,000 question. If these two are the primary categories, and if because the current logic is not to overtag, do we think this will catch all the noms in the sister projects, i.e. Women in Sport, Women Writers, Women Scientists, etc. or do each of those need to be added? SusunW (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so; however, the first two examples I randomly looked at, Talk:Agatha Christie and Talk:J. K. Rowling, both included WikiProject Women Writers and WikiProject Women on the talk page, so that would suggest not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Can you please fix the templates so the features requested here work? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like it's coming together! I think it may be important to catch those sister projects (e.g. Women in Sport), if only because I've encountered certain editors who have very strong opinions about overtagging -- they may tag their GA nomination about a female tennis player with WikiProject Women in Sport, but refuse to additionally label it with WikiProject Women or Women in History. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I do admit that when people argue about whether an article should go in project / category 'x' or project / category 'y', my eyes glaze over and I wonder if there's some grass nearby I can watch grow instead as a more pleasurable activity. But that's just me, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not just you, Ritchie333.  :-) I suppose catagorisation is something all encyclopedic projects have to figure out how to deal with though, especially one as huge as Wikipedia. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's primarily why I brought it up. I love your description, Ritchie333, captures my reaction as well ;) SusunW (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Wilma Mankiller

Women in Red's topic for August is indigenous women. Looking at Mankiller's article, it is definitely in need of serious improvement. That being said, while I have found a lot of information on her, I think it is critical to discuss her politics. There was a book written Beloved Women: The political lives of Ladonna Harris and Wilma Mankiller but there does not appear to be an e-book available. I went on Amazon to order the book, but it will cost me more than the price of the book to ship it to Mexico AND I cannot expect delivery until October 3rd. Is there anyone who would be willing to collaborate on Mankiller's biography and who would have access to the book at a local library? SusunW (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, I checked my local library systems, but no sign of this book, unfortunately. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trying Alanna the Brave. Got a note from Megalibrarygirl she found a copy in the next state, but it's only about 30 minutes from her. She's going to try to get it. One of those books I'd love to actually own. Harris' bio needs work too. SusunW (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave and SusunW: It seems to be at the NM University in Cruces. I also have a standing invitation to come visit a friend at the Public library in Cruces and so I really need to go. This just gives me the kick in the pants to do it. I can go sometime after the 12th of August. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl That's perfect. I am working on the bio part now, as I said, it was a mess, but mid-month still gives us plenty of time to finish the bio. Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, SusunW! It gives me an excuse to take a mini trip. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are doing a wonderful job on this, SusunW. Let me know when you need me to go through it for copy editing.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ipigott. This is actually one I know something about! My degrees were in women's and Native American history and I grew up a hairs-breadth away from Tahlequah. Slow going, but I want to get it balanced. Now I am torn as to whether I should work on the controversy article, as it is clearly misstating facts and sources, but I do not want to become involved in an edit war. SusunW (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Anything to do with controversy looks dangerous.--Ipigott (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more! SusunW (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott I have made it through all the sources I have. Still need the book Sue is getting on policy, so there may be changes, but if you want to start with the copyedit, feel free. I KNOW there have to be more photos of her. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, so *surely* there are government photos which can be used. I also haven't done the lede, as will be evident. I need to take a break from her for a day or so, to cogitate the summary. SusunW (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

.SusunW: There something missing from the sentence "In 1956, when she was eleven..."--Ipigott (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott fixed it, but it could probably be worded more clearly. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• SusunW: I've been through it all but there was very little needing attention. You have certainly included an enormous amount of detail and quite a bit of additional background. I rather like the way you have combined her life story with the background and the awards she received. Others might prefer to see these in separate sections but I wouldn't make any major changes at this stage. Great work, once again. Now we just need the lead. But take your time. While I'm here, any interest in Audrey Hepburn?--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott, there were just so many awards they would take up far too much space in a list. ;) I also struggled a bit about the controversies, finally opting to put the Freedmen issue in a note, as she simply implemented policy that was passed before her terms; but felt that I had to address the situation with her successor in the body. Not sure about Hepburn, in general, I know very little about television or film, or popular culture in general. I am far more interested in people who impacted the actual lives and living conditions of others. I haven't really thought beyond September, when I was thinking that for lawyers to tackle either Clara González or Ángela Acuña Braun, depending on whether sources can be found. Let me give it some thought. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, they sound really interesting if accessible sources can be found and I'd love to help. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That'd be cool The Drover's Wife! Ipigott I've written the lede, probably POVish, as I adored this woman! A major storm has just blown in, our power is off, and I am operating on emergency battery, so am probably done for the day. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And finally I have power again. Whew! SusunW (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• SusunW: As you created Ángela Acuña Braun, you would probably like to take it to GA. I would be happy to help out with any Spanish-language sources which seem important. And of course anything else you need help with. I'm fascinated by her diploma in "aviculture". Why this course of study? Did she ever take it any further?--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott no idea on aviculture, except maybe its a cheap source of food and widely used in the area? Funny, I was leaning toward González for the reason that I would learn more doing her ;) Still both are in Central America, where typically there are not many sources, so sourcing will be the dictator, I'm thinking. SusunW (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

As is typical, I am worthless with images. I did have help in finding the Presidential Medal of Freedom photo :) but am unsure of what else to put. Since she came to prominence after 1977, very few images of her are in the PD. I added a map for the Cherokee Nation territory, as I think that helps with geographical location and a photo of Alcatraz and the Cherokee Heritage Center. Other than that, I am at a loss for ideas. Perhaps @Ipigott and Alanna the Brave:, y'all have ideas for photographs on Mankiller? SusunW (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No great photo ideas yet, I'm afraid, but I'll let you know if I stumble across anything interesting that might work. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

SusunW -- if you're still looking for images, I meandered through the Commons again today and thought of some possibilities: how about one of these pictures of the Arkansas River in Colorado [9] (because of the Cherokee Nation's claim to government compensation over the river), or San Francisco during the 1950s [10]? Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave the Colorado side is way far away, but it occurs to me that I can probably use photos from the McClellan-Kerr project. Thank you! SusunW (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

New userbox

I created a userbox for this project, modeled after the one from Women in Red. You can add it using {{User WikiProject Women in Green}}, which looks like:

This user makes women green.

The template can be found under Template:User WikiProject Women in Green. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777: That looks very good. Why not post it on the main Women in Green page? We could then alert all the participants.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Very nice, Sportsfan77777. Thanks for taking the initiative! That should definitely go on the main page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Love this! SusunW (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Proud to put this on my user page. Thank you! --Auldhouse (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I need to actually put forward a few more women-oriented GAs first before I can justify using this box on my page. But it's nice to see it available. If you've got a "This user misses Dr. Blofeld" userbox, I'll have that, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins

I have long toyed with the idea of taking this article to GA status, primarily as an exercise for writing with a neutral point of view. I despise Katie Hopkins and everything she stands for, but that doesn't mean she can't have a well-written biography that takes no sides. The principal problem is the article has never been particularly stable, and many editors have been involved with it; since she's been sacked from LBC, the source coverage has died down a bit and perhaps it's time to revisit it. However, I believe the article is reasonably well-written and sourced, although I haven't checked every single citation. Does anyone else think this is a worthwhile exercise? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I rarely work on living people and it probably would not have occurred to me to work on a living person for GA. Seems like one would be putting in a lot of work on an article that was subject to lots of changes. But, heck, what do I know ;) SusunW (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I also can't help thinking that, while this project is nominally about improving any articles relating to women, having a leading example of a person documented in multiple reliable sources as being a racist troll is probably not a good advertisement for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

True dat. While I do think there is merit in presenting the wide diversity that is part of this world, I do get to pick and choose what my level of involvement will be. I choose to participate mainly on people who were builders of community and spaces for inclusion. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ritchie333: I must say I share Susun's view that Hopkins, now in her early 40s, has still a long way to go. There are plenty of well established people to work on, just look at the list on the main Women in Green page. We can also try to develop further some of the articles Susun has created on Women in Red. She usually does a pretty thorough job from the start.--Ipigott (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible request for assistance.

I use ORES to tell if my article is ok and at what approximate standard. Because I put a couple of articles through DYK some have relatively good standards now. I have 3 that ORES thinks should be GA and one it places at B. I was wondering what I need to do to improve these to the point of submitting them to see if they actually ARE GA (and if the B could be brought to GA). BTW they are actually all assessed as Start class or C right now. They are:

• Margaret Dobbs
• Emily Winifred Dickson
• Louise Gavan Duffy

and Nancy Wynne-Jones. Can someone advise on my next steps? Is anyone here interested in taking on me/them? ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 10:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Louise Gavan Duffy is your best bet for GA. Have a chat with SchroCat, who I believe has accumulated quite a few early 20th century suffragette sources (see Black Friday (1910)). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Antiqueight -- I agree with Ritchie333 that Louise Gavan Duffy would be one of the best candidates for GA, although I think Emily Winifred Dickson is getting close as well. The other two articles are a bit short at the moment. I can suggest some general improvements you may want to consider: (1) Expanding the lead paragraph of each article (the intro at the top) to more fully summarize the article. I think 2-3 paragraphs is a reasonable length for the lead. (2) Since you're using the Harvard-style parenthetical referencing system, I think your 'Further Reading' sections should be more accurately titled 'Bibliography', while your list of published works by the article subject (e.g. works by Louise Gavan Duffy) should be titled something else, such as 'Selected works'. SusunW could probably confirm this. (3) Think about locating one or two more historical photos or images from the Commons to illustrate your articles: for example, towns, cultural or period items, or important buildings or institutions that impacted the life of these women. (4) Make sure every paragraph in the main body of your article ends with at least one citation. These four articles are mostly fine, but I noticed a couple of paragraphs in the Duffy article without citations. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both - I shall see what I can do with these suggestions. I get to the point where, I have done what I know how to do and it's not bad and then....what's next! You know? Get's to a point where I can't see the article for knowing it too well too. So thanks and I'll have a go at those. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Antiqueight so sorry I have been slow to respond. Real world things going on in droves this week. I recently wrote a similar review for Thsmi002 on Nancy Marcus. I agree that Duffy is the most likely candidate. Lede is too short, further reading section should be minimal. (You should have perused all of them that you have access to and gleaned info from them. Otherwise, it appears that you have not thoroughly researched the subject.) Her publications should indeed be called "Selected works". I am not good with photos, cannot help you there. If you need/want help next week I will have better availability. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Real world being what it is it may take me longer than that to get to a point where I can get more help. I remember reading the info but thinking it was interesting stuff and people might want to read the original. But it's been a while so I'll have to read it all again to remember what got left out and not....also I was less sure then what to include etc. I will have a go and when I get stuck again I'll yell. I should be able to do photos just fine.. Just need to think of which to include etc.. THANK YOU ALL> ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 19:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been through Louise Gavan Duffy for copy editing and made some comments on Antiqueight's talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you've gotten some solid advice here, Template:Ping:Antiqueight. I think following Alanna the Brave's advice is excellent and will get your article in shape for nomination. I would just offer a slightly different perspective on two small points. First, it's correct that each paragraph should end in a citation, but even more than that, each sentence should be cited. An exception would be where consecutive sentences would be cited to the same source, you only need to place the citation at the end of the last sentence. Practically that often works out to citing the last sentence of a paragraph. Second, I've noticed there are a lot of different opinions about whether images are required. I know some editors will fail an article without them, whereas others just require that any images used are within the guidelines. I like the latter approach. Go for it if you want to, but I don't think it's a requirement.

That leads me to something I found useful before nominating my first article, and that was reading through other nominees and articles that had GA status. Finding other similar biographies and seeing what they look like is a good way to figure out the standard or see how your articles compare. The GA guidelines themselves are also pretty useful. The process can be a little frustrating in that you will see a wide range of quality in the articles passed and in the thoroughness of the review process. I think a key is realizing that the review process is one editor's opinion. The worst that can happen is they fail the article and you have to renominate. Most reviewers will give comments and give you the opportunity to bring the article to the point where they can pass it. Following the advice from other editors here should put you in good position to start the nomination process. Knope7 (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

September Clara González or Ángela Acuña Braun

It would appear that both González and Acuña have had biographies written about them. I have access to neither. González, Acuña @The Drover's Wife and Ipigott: or anyone else have access to either? I thought I might have found a clue to why Acuña studied chickens "La diarrea blanca bacilar de los pollitos, por Angela Acuña" is all I can see in the preview for this magazine but weirdly though it is in archive.org, I cannot access it. This book also seems to have a bio of Acuna. From the snippet, I get from page 293, her family was wealthy and her parents were Adela Braun Bonilla and Ramon Acuña, but again, I have no access to it or this. My analysis of the two is that Acuña probably has more sourcing available both in Spanish and English. open access journals and google scholar vs for González google scholar with no open access journals. I find newspaper articles on González and the article could definitely be improved, but I think if we are going for GA, we should concentrate on Acuña, unless someone has access to the bios. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Not having much luck searching for them here either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't access the bios either but maybe some of the snippets from here will help with Acuña.--Ipigott (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that seals it then—focus on Acuña, since the sourcing options are better. SusunW (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hot 100 revisited

Hello, I was requested by @The Drover's Wife: to discuss the addition of Lucille Ball, Olivia Newton-John and Virginia Woolf to the Hot 100. She stated that they were all "American Hollywood" celebrities. Lucille Ball is the only one that would fit that description; her article was once a GA, and it would probably be easy to get it back up to that status. Arguably, she is also a pioneering queen of early US television comedy. Olivia Newton-John is an English-Australian entertainer (granted, with success in Hollywood), and Virginia Woolf is an English writer. 2 of the 3 articles are considered Level 4 Vital articles on Wikipedia, and the other (ONJ) is considered Level 5. I specifically chose them because of this importance. I was trying to WP:BB and fill in the gaps and add more articles for people to take note of since we had some vacant spots in the Hot 100. I would think that adding women considered Vital Articles to Wikipedia would be appropriate to populate the Hot 100. I don't have any particular impetus other than their Vital Article status for these particular women. Are there any guidelines you'd like to stipulate for this list, so appropriate additions can be made in the future? LovelyLillith (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Shirley Temple should go on the hot 100 - level 4 vital article, one of the most well-known child stars of all time and a substantially important adult career too. It's a failed FAC, so again, getting it to GA may not be too hard. I think Lucille Ball doesn't really hold as much prominence as she is only really well known in the US (unless I'm mistaken). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Maybe it's generational, but two things I know, in some of the most surprising and out of the way places on the globe, my small home town in the American mid-south and Lucille Ball are internationally known. I cannot tell you how many times I have been asked about both. My anecdotal evidence is supported: Britain, Spain, Colombia, France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs)

The Independent source does say "Younger viewers could have been forgiven for being clueless about Lucille Ball", and while I certainly know who she is and remember hearing about her death on the news, I don't think I've ever even seen a single episode of I Love Lucy (for comparison, Americans probably aren't familiar with Carla Lane). Still, I don't think there's much point debating it - whatever my views, Ball is still a worthy article to improve to GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 you are right, I never heard of Lane, but on the other hand, I didn't own a television from 1978 until 2016 (okay, it's my husband's—I don't even now really claim that I own it, only that he has one ;) and I haven't lived in the US for over a decade.) As to your earlier comment, Temple not just for her acting career, but for her ambassadorial work definitely would belong on a list of vital articles, IMO. SusunW (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but in the late 1980s, Bread was one of the most popular shows on British television and watched by virtually everybody on a Sunday evening (and to get briefly back on-topic, it was one of the few sitcoms to have a strong matriarch as a central character), yet as soon as it stopped airing, everyone seems to have disowned it and forgotten about it, it's not been repeated very often, or at least not prominently, and consequently its Wikipedia article is in pretty poor shape. Funny old thing, popular culture. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LovelyLillith IMO they are fine. Ball was very well-known for her business acumen as well, so she was not simply a "celebrity". I have no earthly idea what the criteria for Vital articles is (I have actually asked, but no one answered the question specifically, though there was some off the wall comment comparing the import of football stars to Simón Bolívar, leading me to believe that it is a collection of famous people, rather than those who had actual global impact). Lacking criteria, my own personal standard is to focus on women who have/had international recognition, regardless of whether that is from fame, infamy, or reputation. SusunW (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Lucille Ball is easy to underestimate as a comedy star; but she was an important woman television producer and entrepreneur[11]. Much of that story is told in the entry of Desilu Productions, but her own article still needs to be considered in that light. (In California elementary schools, she's regularly included in lists of "famous Californians" for kids to do biographies about; I know because my own kid did one, in fourth grade.)Penny Richards (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I agree with @SusunW: that I'm not sure either what constitutes a Vital Article to The Powers That Be, but I figured that might be a good place to source some of the Hot 100 until we have a method in place (or if we already do, please let me know what it is). I think with the current discussion in mind, I'll put up Lucille Ball, Shirley Temple and Virginia Woolf on the list. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I was cautious because the list already has a serious bias towards recent-ish North American entertainers, so it's a bit disappointing to see the gaps filled by yet more of them (Woolf aside). The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just wanted to throw in some comments: while I don't dispute that Lucile Ball, Olivia John-Newton and Virginia Woolf are all notable women (and deserving of GA articles), I'm thinking we should be careful not to re-fill the Hot 100 list solely with women from only one or two regions of the world. Like The Drover's Wife, I've noticed some regional bias: of the 100 women currently on our list, I'm counting 42 from North America (40 from the USA), 37 from Europe, 10 from Asia, 9 from Africa/Middle East, 1 from an Oceania country (Australia), and 1 from Central/South America. This means the list is 79% North American/European, which is a bit disproportionate (but probably reflective of Wikipedia as a whole). In future, perhaps we should aim to shape this list into being no more than 50% North American/European women? What does everyone think of that? We're starting to see movement in the project (three Hot 100 articles have been passed as GA, with several others nominated), so we'll be able to add new women as we go along. I also think we should discuss articles before adding them to the list.

Regarding the Wikipedia Vital Articles lists: to the best of my understanding, they were pretty much compiled on a first-come-first-served basis, with a permanent cap on the number of submissions in each category. If anyone wants to add an article to a category that has reached its limit, they'll now have to argue why their submission should replace an existing submission (i.e. this historical figure is more important than that historical figure). I think this process is problematic -- we can start building our lists from the Vital Articles, but we shouldn't neglect to look elsewhere for important female figures.  :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I WAS mindful to attempt to find some diversity in the women that I put on the list. Unfortunately the VA categories that I looked at (such as mathematics and religion) either didn't have women at all, they were already GA status, or they were not from underrepresented parts of the world. That's a problem in itself, but I was looking for 3 candidate names, and when I found them, I filled the list. Editors are still free to work on other articles that they may feel are more suitable, or to revise my posts to other women if they feel they would better suit the list. LovelyLillith (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

We can always have a look around and suggest ideas; the first non UK, non US article that came to mind was Eva Perón, but that's a GA already - although there are a couple of tags in it, which shouldn't be in a GA at all, so if somebody can quickly fix those (waves to SusunW), that would be fab. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Nature of the beast Ritchie333 anyone can edit. This one was taken to GA in 2006. Lots of edits since then. I cannot access any of the sources cited and wanting page numbers. Perhaps other sourcing can be found to substantiate the claims. But it won't be a quick fix. I'll try to look at it, but have one that's being reviewed right now, another I am in the middle of writing and Acuña on the boards. I'll do it, it just won't be today or even tomorrow ;) Alanna the Brave I like the 50% ratio limit on NA/EU, though I probably would not include CEE, the Caribbean, or Mexico in that portion. SusunW (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the 50% ratio limit would be an excellent idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Jumping in, the Hot 100 was originally from Vital Articles Levels 3 & 4 (Olivia Newton John is Level 5). Vital articles are definitely subjective. Level 5 is still in progress and I think has suffered from being populated by a small number of well-intentioned editors who are picking articles for areas outside their areas of expertise. There are still a few level 4 women not on our list yet, I think a few of the women might be Asian if memory serves. I think if we are thinking about names to add, we should strive for racial diversity too. An abundance of North American women is less of a problem for me if they come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. I also think the goal of the list should be to give helpful suggedtikns of women withkut GA articles. Having a variety of articles is helpful but at the end of thr day the list doesn't matter that much. We've had some great recent progress on women not found on that list. Knope7 (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

All good thoughts! I'm totally okay with your choices for the list LovelyLillith -- I just want to get the conversation started for future picks. I've spotted a few possible non-North American/European candidates via browsing the wiki category "High-importance Women's History articles", including Indira Gandhi and Izumo no Okuni (both from the Level 4 Vital Articles). Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to slip in another candidate: Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for future work as well. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent successes

Should we not add a list of recent successes to the main Women in Green page? GAs created under Women in Red are posted on the WiR Showcase page but it is not really appropriate to add articles such as Margot Fonteyn to the WiR list if they were not created there.--Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I like it too! SusunW (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave and SusunW: I've added a section "Recent successes" based on the WiR Showcase list. Many of the articles are based on their inclusion in DYK but there are probably more which have not appeared there or which I have missed. If you know of any, please add them.--Ipigott (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott! I'm thinking it might be best to stick to a specific time frame for "recent" successes -- maybe GA articles from up to a year ago? Also: I'm not entirely sure we should be listing GA articles by editors who aren't currently listed as WiG members (I noticed one or two). Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines but I thought I would just include the list for the past few years to see how people reacted. Unfortunately, it's still quite short for the years covered. Let's first see how others react before we cut it back.--Ipigott (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about listing only articles improved by WiR members but my general approach to Wikipedia has been that wikiprojects frequently lead to wider participation. I know that some of the most active contributors to Women in Red are not officially members but do their best to support the project. I think the same must be true of WiG.--Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Certainly true! We'll see how it goes. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I've cut it back to 2018 additions. I agree we should be encouraging more active participation.--Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Related to this, would anyone else be interested in tracking all of the Hot 100 successes in a separate list? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I'm a little unsure about the desirability of having too many different lists/sections. What if we added a special note/icon next to any Hot 100 articles on the 'Recent Successes' list? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Not strictly a WIG, but

I thought watchers may be interested to know that Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography recently became a featured list (UKLG herself is one of the Hot 100). Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! Definitely within the spirit of improving coverage of women. I happy to see this progress and maybe it will inspire others to tackle similar lists. Knope7 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

I see that this article reached GA for a brief period in 2009 but was then delisted. It has now been expanded to about three times its 2009 length and has been far better referenced. It looks to me that with some general improvements in presentation and some careful copyediting, the article could be quickly brought up to GA standard. I'll see if I can devote some time to it myself but would appreciate assistance. I think it goes without saying that Christie is one of the world's most significant female authors, receiving an average of some 5,000 page views a day on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy with other Wikipedia projects and real-world work at the moment, but I'm willing to help out by proofreading/copyediting. Just let me know when you're ready for another pair of eyes. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My mom is arriving tomorrow for two weeks. I'll probably be offline more than I am on, but toward the end of the month, between working on Acuña, I can probably help some. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As this has been hanging around for years and years, a month or two won't make much difference. I've already started to work on the presentation, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Women + Law

To go along with the Women in Red editathon topic, I have been working on Elena Kagan, and I plan to do more work on Janet Reno and possibly Sandra Day O'Connor. I know SusunW is also working on Ángela Acuña Braun, which is another great choice. My priority right now is Elena Kagan. She is a United States Supreme Court Justice. I am working on the jurisprudence section for her article. The article is otherwise in decent shape. I have noticed a few sections that can use improvement, and those are 1) Solicitor General, the section is more about her confirmation and ideological criticism rather than what she actually did in the post, 2) the article could use a "Personal life" section. Kagan has never been married but that does not mean she has no personal life. I'd be happy to share ideas and sources I have for the topic, and 3) Recognition could use more substance. I'm sure she's been honored more than is currently mentioned, and if not we can fold what is there into her tenure at SCOTUS. I would like to have the article in nomination shape in the next few weeks. One thing that is nice about the Kagan article is there are a lot of high quality free sources online. Knope7 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Geraldine Page

I reviewed Geraldine Page to GA status. Can Page be added to our list of Women in Green? I think she warrants it. Auldhouse (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Captain Marvel and other female comic-book heroes

Comic-book characters aren't equivalent to prominent historical figures, but comic-book culture has become a major force in recent years and comic-book movies are one of the few forms of pop-culture that still get seen by mass (rather than niche) audiences that cut across demographics. Captain Marvel is the first female character to lead a Marvel Universe movie since the company began its run at dominating theaters with the first Iron Man movie in 2008. I took a look at one of the character's entries and noticed her #29 ranking on a published list of the "Sexiest Women in Comics" was part of the intro/lead paragraph. Seems trivial, and anti-feminist to make this a top-level point of information. I edited it out of the lead (the info still appears in the "Characterization" subsection, which somewhat discusses gender politics around the character's depiction. Edit was immediately reverted. Subsequent discussion on the entry's talk page led to reinstatement of my edit and consensus agreement that this obscure sexiness rating does not merit inclusion in a Lead/Intro section. Anyone else care to weigh in?--GDswamp (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes to sexiness rankings' prominence across female comic-hero entries

During discussion of the Carol Danvers/Cpt. Marvel article, I searched and found that a single contributor (in 2012) had added details of Sexiness rankings to entries of ~70 female comic-book heroes, placed in Intro text in at least 32 cases (prior edits had already demoted the information in entries for a few prominent characters such as Wonder Woman). I've gone through and demoted the information to "Reception" or "Publication History" sections for 27 entries, leaving it in place in 5 entries where the sex appeal of the character in question was so central to her reason-for-being that removing information about her perceived sexiness would be harder to defend (e.g. Red Sonja, #1 on the cited List and clearly designed primarily as a fantasy object). In many/most cases the information still seems (to me) far too trivial to merit inclusion anywhere but in a 'Trivia' section, if that (no such section existed in any entry and I didn't want to attract reverts with a more aggressive approach). I would have deleted altogether in many cases, but this seemed likely to spark reverts by dedicated comics editors. I settled for the change that had received broad support in discussion on talk page. My edits only begin to address the ways that Wiki contributors' choices about article framing, illustrations, and content inclusion, effectively reinforce/amplify the historical anti-feminist trend in superhero comics.--GDswamp (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)