User talk:Alanna the Brave/sandbox2

First reactions
Hi
 * at the outset, perhaps reiterate what the point of WiG is, why we're doing this, might seem obvious to us, but it's possibly a useful way to draw newcomers in....we can do a bunch of promotions across a number of projects so people might be coming to WiG for the first time. Also, i think useful to identify one (secondary) objective as an opportunity to build capacity of editors.  finally, the effort is part and parcel of establishing the legitimacy and reliability of wikipedia in general, and more specifically addressing bias.
 * Agreed! I've made some edits and added a description of WiG. – Alanna


 * First paragraph, it reads somewhat implicitly that this is biographically focussed. Perhaps some rephrasing so that the possibility of women's organisations (trade unions, electoral lobbies, collectives), or institutional mechanisms (eg laws) could be included in the drive.
 * I see what you mean -- now rephrased. – Alanna
 * 👍 – made two very small copy-edits, looks good. Goldsztajn


 * Second paragraph, "who encounter and/or challenge societal discrimination against women" ... "societal" social? Would it be worthwhile including "gender equality" in some way here?
 * I've removed "societal" and rephrased parts of the paragraph. I like the idea of adding "gender equality," but I feel like that phrase would also be referencing gender equality for men and non-binary folks (which is slightly outside the scope of women's rights). Although -- I suppose transgender women should really be included within this editathon's scope. Do you think that's worth clarifying/emphasizing? – Alanna
 * 👍 – great; I mentioned gender equality because in your earlier version I think you had mentioned men as allies, so it seemed to me this was a way to incorporate that thematic. Goldsztajn


 * Paragraph 3: add something to the effect that the nominated article needs to have had substantial work done by the nominating editor. Also, co-nominations are allowed, eg where one editor has done substantial work and another editor does minor work but has agreement from first for nomination.
 * Agreed! Added. – Alanna
 * 👍 Goldsztajn


 * participants section - we can include an auto add box, AfC did this for their last drive, simplifies the process.
 * Hmm. Do you know if this be easy to implement? I tried checking out past versions of the AfC July Drive page to look for this auto box, but I'm not clear how it works, and I'm not sure how much simpler it would be in comparison to just adding the usual four tildes to a list. – Alanna
 * I was just thinking more about when people add their name it should be done in a way which means they do not edit the whole page; we could also do this through transclusion from a subpage. Goldsztajn


 * before the instructions section, might be useful to add something which indicates that editors don;t have to start from scratch, can be something they have been working on for awhile.
 * Agreed! Added. – Alanna
 * 👍 Goldsztajn


 * Modelled on the recent AfC drive, I've created a template which can be transcluded on an editor's talk pages as an invitation and added this to your text.
 * Thanks for this! Having an invitation for the event will be great. – Alanna
 * 👍 Goldsztajn

Let me know your thoughts, kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate the read-through, and I've made some edits accordingly (see comments above). Additionally: what do you think about the idea of newer GA nominators being able to request a "20-minute assessment" on the editathon talk page before submitting their article? I don't want to put lots of extra work on anyone's plate, but it might help participants avoid quick-fail scenarios. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a very good idea to have a pre-assessment; there's no point serving up quick fails! However the "pre-assessors" (?) will need to be readily available (say a 48 hour turnaround maximum). I'm not able to commit to that over a four week period, but maybe if there were three or four of us who could do it, we could be on shifts (eg I think I could commit to a week shift).  Perhaps we have a section where editors can place a request for preassessment if they would like it?  If it's set up as a transcluded page, the pre-assessors can put it on their watch lists.  I can't imagine we're going to get more than 20 in this .... so it might only be four or five pre-assessments required per preassessor ... and it's fairly easy to detect a quick fail. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll put out a call for 3-4 more reviewers who can help with pre-assessments (we can definitely discuss shifts/availability times). I'm afraid I'm a bit unfamiliar with how transcluded pages work -- can you explain how using a transcluded page would be different from using the event's talk page to request pre-assessments? Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * it's basically a subpage which allows material to appear on another page. For example, when a GA review appears on the talk page of the article, this is done through transclusion. This page describes it in detail: Help:Transclusion.  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Final to-do list
Hey -- just circling back to this now (so many distractions). Ideally, I'd like to finish prep work and have our editathon page live by this coming weekend (Sep. 18-19). Happy to have your thoughts on these to-do items! Here's what still needs to get done:
 * Finalize event name. Do we keep it simple and go with "Women in Green editathon - October 2021 - Women's Rights"? Or do we try to come up with a catchier name? I don't know if this is going to be a one-off event, or if it will become something annual.
 * Update: I'm being bold and changing the name to "Women in Green Good Article Editathon - October 2021- Women's Rights". Can't say if that's catchy, but it should be nice and clear, anyway. :-) - Alanna


 * Set up event page & add relevant links. Another editor found it necessary to create a miscellaneous event page last month while working on a Talk Page tag for WiG. Should we just repurpose this page, or create a brand new one?
 * Set up transcluded page for 20-Minute Article Assessments (I should be able to sort this out).
 * Edit event invitation - add event name!
 * Update: done. - Alanna


 * Outsource creation of a snazzy event barnstar (unless you want to tackle it?).
 * Update: I've put out a call to WiG members. - Alanna
 * Barnstar created, courtesy of WomenArtistUpdates. - Alanna

Cheers, Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Promote event: WP Women, Women in Red, and associated projects (WiR has offered to include a link to our event in their October newsletter). Share invitation to all WiG members. Maybe also post an announcement to the Good Article department? Does the Signpost promote drives/events?