User talk:SusunW/Archive 18

March
You asked about the DYK outcomes of 2015, it looked like this:

I have no idea where the outcomes will be held now, and how, feel free to use. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks I have no idea either. But we'll figure it out. SusunW (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I have input all the approvals, but have no idea how to even find the scheduled ones. Going to move the chart to the Event template and maybe can help? SusunW (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The scheduled ones are here, a women will be pictured tomorrow, but I wonder if it will be part of the outcomes, - it's not a woman article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking more precisely: the "event" is limited in scope, while in 2015 we included everything related to women. Would an opera singer (created for /5 but to appear only now) be part of the outcome? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Any article on women or their works that runs in March or is created in March should be included, IMHO. SusunW (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and anyone else who might be watching and is interested. I *think* I got all the ones that are approved or scheduled on the list. I also have one where a review is pending and one where a review is needed. I don't have time to go through the entire list of nominations so if you know of any I missed, please add. Surely everyone can add their own nominations moving forward. Do we also want to add new articles which could be nominated -- like nomination needed? or just leave it to ones wherein the nomination has been done? SusunW (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks great,thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All due to you . I don't know how to create it, but I can certainly gnome in the background ;) SusunW (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think March meetup page -"Celebrating Women's History Month"- can include all women's DYKs. Do you think that would work, or do you think that would be confusing? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I put in the ones I could find. Everyone who has one out in nomination land that isn't on the list should just put it there. Gerda's list makes it easy to see which ones need to be reviewed. My only question is whether we want to put ones we'd like to nominate. For instance, I could do the Marquesa del Ter and/or Shimizu Shikin as "need nomination" but I have no hook ideas yet and I only have one QPQ. If someone else wants to nominate, they'd be on the list with the clock ticking. Not sure if we want to do that or not. SusunW (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think we should try it and see how it goes. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I was also thinking... What if our meetup page was more inclusive? What if it included the month's editathon(s) stuff (just like it does now), plus all the DYKs for the month related to women, plus the metrics list? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put the metrics there until the end of the month. If people have to input stuff in multiple places, I think they will get frustrated and not do it. There are already some who don't input their created articles in the editathon lists. But, if we do the metrics there then they are with the monthly record. I kinda like that idea. SusunW (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea came to me as the Metrics page is getting too big because of all the entries from all the months. Another option would be to archive each month. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I like it and think it will be easier to find them than for them to be in the archive. But that's just me. SusunW (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just not thrilled with how the Metrics page is set up on our project page (and I can't see to get harej to make the changes I've requested... tabs across the top of the page). Over the weekend, when I worked on the metrics, I was thinking maybe the Metrics page would just have links for monthly metrics pages, such as:
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/July 2015
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/August 2015
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/September 2015
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/October 2015
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/November 2015
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/December 2015
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/January 2016
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2016
 * And include the links in the NavBox and include the Navbox at the bottom of each Metrics page. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Have never been thrilled with the way it takes you to a totally different page. SusunW (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised we've undertaken a new approach to DYKs overnight. Up to now, I have been carefully monitoring all published DYKs on women, placing them on the main page under Metrics as well as on the corresponding editathon pages if appropriate. It seems to me that posting DYK nominations (rather than successful DYKs) will require a lot of additional work. Of course, if everyone else thinks this is important, I am certainly ready to go along with it. But I have a few specific questions. Are we still going to maintain separate lists of published DYKs (on the main page and on the individual editathon pages)? Will you, Susun, continue to monitor the status of DYKs (nominations, problems, queues, publication) or is this a special arrangement for Women's History Month? (If so, there is little point in any further involvement from my side.) If DYKs on all women's interest are to be included, will there be a separate list for those specifically addressing Art and Feminism? (Personally, I think it is useful to monitor our coverage of the individual areas. I have also been wondering if we should not examine this year's DYKs on Women in Science in connection with their emphasis throughout the year. We actually have Meetup/Women in Red/9 where they could be listed. And lastly, why the interest in March 2015?
 * The only interest in March 2015 that I know of is that last year's chart is where Gerda copied the chart from. This format is only for March, unless we decide we like it. I have mentioned in several of our conversations over the last six months that I asked Gerda for the table to keep up with them. I also relayed that she is willing to help but not be responsible solely for maintaining the list. You were the one that suggested we come up with a way to have others help with the nominations. So...I just combined the ideas in the list. Last year there were around 200 DYKs about women in March. It took a whole army of people following up on the reviews, approvals, etc. to stay on top of it. Gerda spearheaded it and followed up, like you do, well after the event to include all the nominations in the list and when they appeared on the page. She has said she cannot take on the responsibility this year. Since you have been maintaining the DYK after the event, I assumed you'd continue doing that. I don't want the responsibility though I will gladly help review DYK nominations. If we like this format, we can certainly keep it and going forward include all DYKs on women, or just those from the editathons or science women. Whatever you want. If not, its a March only thing. You've been the one maintaining the DYK section and it was not my intent to take it over or displace you, only make your job easier in the busiest month we have on women. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the explanations. Now I am beginning to remember various bits and pieces of earlier discussions about DYKs and how we should fit them all in during WHM. In that context, your list seems to be a useful tool -- although it will take quite a lot of time to maintain it properly. I understand you will be doing it for the rest of the month. I certainly don't want to claim any kind of ownership on the various DYK listings but if you think they are useful, I can continue to maintain them in the traditional way. I think a direct link to the articles (rather than to the DYK templates) is useful for those (like me) who want to review them. So if you agree, I'll begin the usual list for Art+Feminism just on top of your own listing. As always, I'll include all the published DYKs under Showcase on the main page. Does that sound reasonable?--Ipigott (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * like Gerda, I cannot do it alone. I figure it will take a lot of us helping to keep the chart up to date. If everyone inputs their own nominations that will make it much easier. What if we move the template to the notes section after it appears and in the name section put the link. Would that make it easier than making a separate listing and they'd all be in one list? I am totally in favor of you maintaining the Showcase and gnoming you are so good at. As I said, just trying to make it an easier process without so much burden on one person. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it is a great idea to try to remove some of the clutter from the main page. The lists are indeed getting longer and longer. Maybe we could have a separate nav box on Metrics and Showcase, otherwise the main nav box is likely to become increasingly cluttered. We could perhaps also include short summaries on the main page, detailing the number of articles/DYKs for each month. It is important for people to be able to see the degree of progress we have been achieving.--Ipigott (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WiR DYKs
Hi Susun. You have been doing a fantastic job with the DYK listings. From the start, I have been including women's works and other articles closely concerned with women but I see you have been concentrating on the biographies of the women themselves. If you would like to include the others, we already have La casa disabitata, Love Me like You and Sarasvati-rahasya Upanishad. I see we also have Ballymena United Allstars F.C., Kamiya Kaoru and Debopriya Chatterjee and Suchismita Chatterjee coming up. If you agree to being more inclusive, you could track these too.--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * La casa is already there, will take the others on board. Still don't know about the judge pictured in the law case, - first woman pictured on DYK March 2016, and surely brought it to the stats. (I confess that I am proud of the hook for a QAI member who left but whose GA nom was completed by a merciful soul.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I got them as far as scheduled. What do you think of new ones at the bottom,as they may likely late in being selected? (Last year we tried alpha.) What do you think of adding the WiR heart to those from the /8 ediathon, instead of the same names in a list on the same page? Will now write one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay! That's perfect Ian and Gerda, It looks great. I just went through as quick as I could to get the list started before March 1, Ian. I may have missed more than just the articles you noted, as I have difficulty when I must scroll up and down a page and that approval queue has dates at the top and info at the bottom. I confess I have no idea about the law case and Justice Kagan. I am perfectly good with however it is organized. Just want it to be easy to follow for anyone and want to encourage others to input their own articles. How do we do that? SusunW (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know. All these "outcomes ;) - Today's DYK went not only to that corner, but to the two DYK lists I keep for project opera and the project talk, DYK Germany, the WiR DYK, the general DYK list, my user page, the WiR DYK, - almost too much to ask others to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What if above the DYK section we put a statement, "if you nominate a file for DYK, please list it here"? Some won't but maybe some will. SusunW (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's asking too much of people to use the list. People rarely inform us of their DYK nominations but if they do so, it is usually when they add a new article to the outcomes. I usually only catch them when they appear in the Queue. I find it is far too difficult - and time-consuming - to wander through all the nominations.--Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's no extra work for me because I wander through the nominations for articles to review. Looking at the 35 I reviewed in 2016, they are more women than any other topic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is why I didn't wander through the nominations either. I only input the ones I knew about ;) But, that being said, it was helpful to know which ones needed reviews or had problems and then people could jump on them and try to get the on the front page during the month. Last year everyone just seemed to add their nominations. Or maybe it was just Gerda and I followed her lead? Maybe we just run with it and see if people input their articles. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't it sufficient to catch them when they reach the queue. Maybe towards the end of the month, you could try to catch the remainder but it is a lot to expect on a day-to-day basis.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kind of like Gerda, I scroll through the nominations looking for women. It's easier for me if they aren't part of the pool of nominations. Lots of push last year to nominate and get them approved. Hard to know how this year will shake out yet. If you focus on the queue that will be great. I'll add ones I come across and Gerda will too. We'll see how it goes. SusunW (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I'll just put "for DYK" next to the name of the article on the outcomes list.--Ipigott (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doris Stevens
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doris Stevens you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Will try to hop on any issues and address them. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doris Stevens
The article Doris Stevens you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doris Stevens for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ninetta May Runnals
Hi, I'm just finishing up my research for this new article, and came across this newspaper clipping from Newspapers.com. As I don't have access to the whole article, I wonder if you would mind copying it onto my talk page? The link is:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Mia Arnesby Brown
Can you help with this one? It needs cleanup after being started. Should count towards this month's editathon!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm on it. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up a bit, I don't know if enough can be found for a DYK!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just found a piece from a Chattanooga art gallery that has quite a bit of info. Who knew, Tennessee would have the answers? SusunW (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are good enough now for DYK. The museum article says images of her works are in PD, but I have no clue. SusunW (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good Susun! Thereza Dillwyn Llewelyn also new and looks interesting! Some of the sources might not meet RS though♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * May be able to look at it later. Right now hip deep in other alligators. SusunW (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much . I am still fairly new on WP myself and have had many great mentors who helped me along. We can make this platform welcoming if we choose ;). If ever you need help, I'm just a ping away. I'll try my best. SusunW (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have technically been here a while and have plenty edits, but til recently they were all maintenance - typos, vandalism etc. So - thank you - and for the tip about the fair use - I usually upload through commons and it won't accept fair use...So I never thought to look for it here. I can go back now and add images to several of the articles!  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 00:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've technically been on here about 15 months. I mostly write articles. If I do gnoming, it is to put articles into WikiProjects or help with WiR tasks. I have little technical skill with WP, so I focus on what I do well, which is write articles about women. I enjoy the writing, but find that I learn as much from writing the articles as I impart. If I find some technical know-how in another article that makes it easier, I make note of it. But, as I said before, I have been lucky with mentors and if I don't know or can't find an answer, I have great people to ask. ;) SusunW (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks to you, I now have 5 articles with images (not all great ones) and anther 2 I should be able to add tomorrow. Though I'm nervous about which photo to use for Juanita Casey...the one with the zebra is excellent but is it biographical? What is interesting is that it can be so hard to find online photos of people who only died 9 years ago but I have a photo from 1884....Anyway - assuming I did it right you can check out Margaret Tynan, Janet McNeill, Sheila Wingfield, Louise Gavan Duffy and possibly, if it's allowed Nine Graces. Since the Nine Graces date from 1884 I can't currently find photos of the two women whose articles I have written...And now I must go to sleep!  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 02:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sleep well. The photos look great. If at any point someone finds free use, they can always replace fair use, but in my experience it doesn't happen often. As long as I can find a decent photo on deceased people, I try to use it. And yes, frustrating that some are impossible to find and others are simple. Some you think would be simple aren't. It's crazy. SusunW (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Doris Stevens
Hello! Your submission of Doris Stevens at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Marguerite de Witt-Schlumberger at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Debopriya Chatterjee and Suchismita Chatterjee
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Can I request to copy edit and nominate this article Rebecca Tobey on DYK, if found suitable? Nvvchar . 16:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have guests in from outside the country. May be very busy for the next few days. If it is not urgent, I will be glad to look at it in due course. SusunW (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Take your time. Nvvchar . 04:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your DYK total
Hi SusunW, you seem to be churning out so many DYKs, I was curious as to how many credits you've received. You're holding at 153 DYKs! I'm wondering if you'd like me to list you at List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs and give you your 100 DYK medal? The only other thing that would need to be done is to create a DYK page where you would list your credits. It could look like mine, if you wish, and I could set it up for you – but you would need to update it every time you get a new credit. What do you think? Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be very cool. Thanks! You know that I don't have the skill to create it, but can surely figure out how to maintain it. SusunW (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I downloaded all the DYKs from your archives, but the program is not letting me copy the ones from your current talk page. I'll keep trying. In the meantime, you also have a few DYK nomination credits. Are you interested in keeping track of those, too? (You need a minimum of 25 credits – creations or nominations – to qualify for a place on the Wikipedian list mentioned above. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * if it is fairly easy to keep track of, sure. Where do I find them? SusunW (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After I finish updating your current total, which I've culled from all your talk page archives, you only need to add each new DYK creation credit as it appears on your current talk page. Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. If I miss one, I can always double check in the chart we're trying to keep on the editathon pages covering all DYKs on women. SusunW (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, all done. You now have a user DYK page to update your credits: User:SusunW/DYKs, and a listing at List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs where you can keep your number of DYK credits updated. Again, this only refers to creation credits. If you'd like a separate tally of nomination credits, I could set that up for you too. Yoninah (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I give QPQs, and help with article expansion and editing, but I don't think I have many nominations of other people's articles. I prefer the random acts of kindness approach and keeping track of them isn't necessary, I think. Thank you for setting up the DYK page for me. I would never have known how to do it. In fact, I did not even know there was an award for nominating. SusunW (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

100 DYK Medal

 * Thank you . I just tell the stories. There are truly so many notable women just waiting for their stories to be told. :) SusunW (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! That's a great achievement. And all your articles are so informative and so well researched.--Ipigott (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Anne Hellum AfD
Hi Susun. If you have time, could you have a look at this one. It seems to me to be fully acceptable but we once again have the academic gang fighting it. While I'm here, I've been working on a few Scandinavians. You might find Amanda Sidwall and Suzette Holten worthwhile for DYK. If I'm not mistaken, you can nominate them without QPQ if they are not yours. can probably advise on this.--Ipigott (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hellum is the editor of an academic journal. Though ACADEMIC is not required, only GNG, as an editor, she meets WP criteria in my estimation and I said that on the nomination. I have visitors in from Belize. Will add your two articles to the DYK list on the page and see if someone will nominate them. If not, I will do it but it may take me a few days, as it doesn't matter if the editor has had no prior nominations only if they nominate it themselves. If I do it, I must provide a QPQ. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supporting Anne Hellum. It's now OK. Sorry about the DYKs. I had misunderstood the rules. Just forget about it and enjoy your time with your visitors. I've always found the DYK procedures unmanageable myself.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And thanks for Amanda Sidwall. Looks good with the picture.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ochy Curiel
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Joceline Clemencia
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Doris Sands Johnson
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Deolinda Rodríguez de Almeida
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for María Currea Manrique
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Australian Women Bios
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-07/women-erased-from-history-on-wikipedia/7225556

Happened to see this last night and thought it might be of interest. ;) We hope (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * very much so! Thank you. Sharing it with WiR! SusunW (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say - I'm a little nervous of the idea of an honorary surgeon. But it would be lovely to see something like this in media here. I've reposted the link on FB. Thanks all.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 19:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL I'll lay you 10 to 1 that she took the studies but was denied the degree before because it was barred to women. But... it does have quite the quirky mental pictures. Imagine you were the first person who decided to do surgery. Whatever would make you think of that? Oh, worse, imagine you were the first patient... SusunW (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of my recent articles have been on the first women to XX in University (more to come one I have an interview out of the way...work and all that). The fun part is that the Royal University let them get a degree before it was possible for them to attend lectures. So they had to learn it all off site and then turn up and do the exams. The first women professor in a university in GB or IRE got her degrees that way. But - oh the imagery.....:-)  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 19:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sonia M. Johnny
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

... and here I was proud to have one chosen. QAI members wrote half of the articles of the day,- thanks to you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you for your support . I don't really deserve too much credit, it is the women whose stories are just waiting to be told who deserve the recognition. :) Happy International Women's Day. SusunW (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Beautifully said, deserves an extra precious ;) - My little contribution to today: I was pleased that I could rescue the article, started by a banned user, stubbed by someone who didn't trust him, - because its the woman and her achievements! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all about them. Too many people get hung up in the editor and rules rather than the subject :) SusunW (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Last thing I did on IWD: nominate a women (an expansion from a 30 March 2014 stub), mentioning in the hook two others who composed, and in the article a woman who conducts. Day is over this end of the world ;) The one who stubbed Hana was less happy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to finish my Romanian/Moldovan suffragist for the day, but I got one of mine and one of Ian's nominated for DYK. :) Sleep well. SusunW (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers.com
Hi SusunW, I signed up for Newspapers.com but I don't see the advantage to it at all. Every single article I want to view requires that I sign up for a 7-day free trial, after which I have to pay $13 a month. How do you get open access? Here's the article I want to view now:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like they haven't gotten your authorization processed yet. Either that, or it isn't linked with your sign on, which someone from WP end will need to do. It shouldn't cost you anything to have access to most papers. There are a "very few" publishers who require premium access, but those are a tiny minority and often you can find a similar article on the same day in a paper in which the WP subscription has paid for. If WP sent you an e-mail that it is approved and you are still getting that subscription message, message the WP contact back. Something may be wrong in the way they processed the account. Here's the article I think. If it's not the one, just tell me the name and I'll find it for you. Input it as you normally would any source and then tack |via = Newspapers.com}}  on the end of the citation. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. I didn't do it through WP, but through the Newspapers.com site. Where is the Wikipedia page for signing up?
 * Thanks for this article. I can use it, too, but the one I need is from the Portland Daily Herald, November 13, 1949, talking about John and Dorothy Healy's Bald Hill turkey farm, on which they also raise pheasants and partridges. Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That explains that ;) WP covers the subscription if you go through them. It's here: Newspapers.com. While you are at it, also get Newspaperarchive.com as they cover different papers. Let me see if I can find the article you need. SusunW (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this it? SusunW (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thanks so much. And I just applied at Newspapers.com. Thanks for all your help, Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. You help me so much all the time, the little bit I can do in return seems small by comparison. Until they get your account transitioned over, please feel free to let me help you with any articles you need. SusunW (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We each have our strengths. It's a pleasure to work together. Yoninah (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I applied for Newspaperarchive.com as I didn't even know about it..  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 18:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, stalk away ;) . It's been really helpful for me. They have a more broad (broader?) international base, which helps a lot in the Caribbean. Still haven't found any significant source for newspapers that aren't English language-based, but am always on the hunt. Dr. Blofeld knows how to get them approved (he helped push Newspaperarchive through), so if we can find archives that are willing to cooperate with WP (unfortunately that would not be the NY Times), we can always try to get more archives approved. As I said to Yoninah earlier, newspapers are key for searching women, IMO, as traditional publishers didn't often cover their works/activities, but news articles often did. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * SusunW, I am still waiting for my Newspapers.com account to come through (they approved it). Could you show me the full article from the Indianapolis Star, December 27, 1974, page 12, titled "Feminism Brings Changes to Marriage Contracts"? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, that is one of the actual "premium" articles I don't have access to. I don't find any other articles immediately around that date with a similar title, but I found these two on "marriage".  Is there a name I can search? SusunW (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was searching for Lois Galgay Reckitt. Yoninah (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this one is similar to the contract one above. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are tons of articles about her in that Indianapolis Star. Couldn't find any on similar dates in Newspapers.com, so popped over to Newspaperarchives. Got:, , , . On these, input the same as you would any reference and then tack |via = Newspaperarchive.com}} on the end. Let me know if I can help further. SusunW (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it. Thanks very much! Yoninah (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK possibilities
I was asking Yoninah but I thought I'd get your ideas too..

I was thinking of a DYK something like - Did you know that the Students at the College of Surgeons protested at being asked questions on Midwifery by a woman even when she was the exceptional Emily Winifred Dickson, first woman Fellow of the College?

Or Did you know that a professor refused to let Emily Winifred Dickson join his University course on the grounds that she cheated him because, he said, Winifred was a man's name?

OR - Did you know that Mary Ryan (academic), the first woman to be appointed as a Professor in either Ireland or Great Britain, could not attend lectures in the University when she was studying for her degree. Women were not yet allowed attend lectures even though they could graduate!  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 17:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are limited to 200 characters in the hook. I use this tool:
 * It has to be neutral, so avoid "flowery" descriptions. IMO, first hook would be better worded as:
 * ...that the students at the Royal College of Surgeons protested at being asked questions on midwifery by Emily Winifred Dickson even though she was the college's first female Fellow?
 * ALT1 ... that one of her professors accused Emily Winifred Dickson of cheating, as he allowed her into his course believing Winifred to be a man's name?


 * On the other one, try:
 * ... that Mary Ryan earned her BA from the Royal University of Ireland and graduated, though rules forbade her attending classes there? or
 * ... that Mary Ryan, first woman professor in either Ireland or Britain, was forbidden to sit in lectures, but graduated after passing the Royal University of Ireland's BA examinations?


 * Obviously you don't have to use any of those. Also, list them, if you want on the chart so that others will know they need reviews. SusunW (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are a star - those sound great - I'll go through and see what works and follow the instructions - Hopefully I'll get it done this evening and you will see it there later.<em style="font-family: Mistral; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 18:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When you have a minute can you check the DYK I just created and that I put it up on that list correctly? Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Ryan (academic) and chart. Should I have given you credit for the hook creation?<em style="font-family: Mistral; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 19:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks great. I made 2 minor tweaks. Just show the name, not the (academic) part in the nomination. And I put on the nomination that a QPQ is not required as it is your 2nd nomination. You are allowed 5 without having to do a QPQ. On the chart it looks great. Now, go to the main page of DYK Template talk:Did you know click on the day the file was created (March 7th) and copy the template Did you know nominations/Mary Ryan (academic) to the top of that day and save. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

<em style="font-family: Mistral; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 20:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. First couple of times, it's hard. After that, it gets easier ;) SusunW (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)