User talk:SusunW/Archive 57

Lecher?
I've about decided this may be a language issue. This p 243 says an Austrian delegate was Frau Hofrath Lecher and this calls her Frau Hofrath von Lecher and says "Until the war she had lived a quiet private life. Now she had an important position in an Austrian hospital which cared for five hundred wounded." This says she lives at "XVIII Cottage Gasse 30, Wiero, Osterreich". p 66 (PDF p 70) says "Lecher Ernst, Dr., Hofrat, Direktor des I. physikalischen Institutesder Wiener Universität, XVIII Cottagegasse 30" That made me think Hofrat is not a surname, as I originally thought, but something else, which this translates as court counsel. Ernst Lecher has the same address and Frau Lecher, thus his bio shows a second wife of Helene (1865–1929) who worked in hospitals during WWI. Which then led me to the de.WP article on Helene, but that mentions nothing about WILPF involvement. Nor does, , ,, or (pdf 519). Finally the 1921 WILPF conference book solves it, listing her as both Frau Hofrat Lecher and Helene Lecher. I think I have the identity right now, and Frau Hofrath is simply identifying her based on him? Do you concur?
 * , I never got an answer, but I am positive that I properly identified Helene Lecher. If you have time, could you give it a copyedit? I am unsure about a lot of the German titles because the OCR reader for the Austrian Archives constantly mistakes letters. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not see your previous post on this, possibly because it was not signed. I'll look at everything more carefully tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to have replied to you earlier but the quick answer is that Hofrat/Hofrath is simply a title. In Austria, it is quite common to address a woman with the title of her husband. You'll find further explanations here. I'll now look at the article more closely.--Ipigott (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Seems so weird to refer to her as if she is merely an extension of him, but the link is interesting, explaining it is done for status purposes. Ugh! Thanks for looking it over. I am enjoying working with you on these pacifists. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: Ugh! and on reflection, it's not so different from the prominence given to your "First Ladies". In the UK, "Lady" is widely used as a title based simply on her husband's status. And how about all our princesses, duchesses, marchionesses, baronesses, countesses, etc., usually based on their husband's title? I realize there are no longer so many of these in America, but you still use them widely when referring to foreigners. And in Spanish (perhaps more so in Spain than in Latin America), if a man is referred to as "Don", then his wife is usually addressed as "Doña" (or in Portuguese as "Dona"). Vive la différence!--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Except those women have a name, Lady Catherine, First Lady Mary, Princess Pea. The Austrian custom seems to erase their identity. Kind of like that 19th century thing where womens names were Mrs. X Y Zed. Totally not helpful to have a husband's initials and surname to find his hidden wife. It makes research so much harder. SusunW (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm enjoying it too, especially when you manage to dig up a life story that would otherwise be forgotten. Let me know if you have any more up your sleeve. I've looked at Elsa Beer-Angerer from Austria too but could not find much on her. Perhaps there's pertinent info in the newspapers you are so good at searching. Can't find many more of historic interest on WikiProject Women in Red/Peace. Now working on Lotti Latrous but find it very strange that there is no mention of her maiden name anywhere. Are there no birth registrations in Switzerland? Maybe even confirmations or school records from the small community where she was brought up?--Ipigott (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * She sounds fascinating, but as a living person, I think she can control what about her is known. I searched a bit, but find nothing readily available. SusunW (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Laura Bergt
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Good to see this proved so popular.--Ipigott (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was truly totally shocked, but glad that people learned about her. SusunW (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kae Miller
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kae Miller 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kae Miller
The article Kae Miller you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kae Miller and Talk:Kae Miller/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Theodora Kroeber scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 February 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/February 17, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Wishing you and yours peace, joy, and productivity (yes, I realize some days getting out of bed qualifies) in the coming year. SusunW (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Good news! Today's featured article is Osbert Parsley, not by me but Amitchell125 where, including the beginning of my songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool! SusunW (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm on vacation, - click on songs! I tell my own stories now, instead of relying on DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Very cool. I hope you have some wonderful R&R, full of music and nature and beautiful colors. SusunW (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Check new pics: I do! Today's topic Elisabeth Waterhouse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * more pics but still 2 days behind --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OMG, whatever are those yellow fuzzy flowers? So lovely. And the cat! Bananas like that grow in my back yard. So glad you are having a good time. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I admire the flowers but don't know names even in German ;) - I'm happy about the pictured DYK you made with ARoseWolf! Mine today, Elena Manistina, or: why Tchaikovsky's The Enchantress isn't on the Main page, leaves me rather unhappy, and that's my last woman on DYK, - life is too short. Under the recent deaths, I have Clytus Gottwald for whom I made a DYK in 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was shocked that we got over 25,000 views. But, it was a woman's life that needed to be told. I'm hoping we get a whole set for IWD. I remember years past when it was so many more, but as you say, life is too short and haggling is too frustrating. SusunW (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * back, but still 1 1/2 days of pics missing - 26 Jan was variations on views of a lighthouse --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I love lighthouses! and those houses along the rocky coast are cool, but I think I wouldn't want to live in them. Glad you are back. Looks like you are going to need R&R time to recover from your vacation ;) SusunW (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you ;) and now the rest (one more meal and a dog) - Melitta Muszely died, RIP - the other story is 10 years old OTD ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Early Black chemist
Hello, I started an article on chemist Clara W. Hall a while back. I always wished it was more thorough but I struggled to find historical sources. Perhaps if you have time or interest, you might have better luck. TJMSmith (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hard time period because of our lack of access to the black press, but I'll see what I can do. SusunW (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Banging my head against the wall. There's a story there, but it is sooooo hard to dig up. Looks like she was raised by a single mom, Viola Walke from Kentucky. Viola was a nurse and married John F. (Frank) Jenkins in 1946., By 1968, she was the nursing supervisor of the Pediatrics Department at Harlem Hospital. Tiny little snippets about Clara in the New York Age (I checked the Pittsburg Courier and Afro-American as well, but nada) ,, I think this says she married George Hall in 1955, which jives with this, but I wouldn’t use it as a RS. It says George's mom was Flora Pearce, but his father's obit says Laura. I thought if I could put the family together, it would give me a broader range of how to search for her, but it didn't help. I checked archive.org, hathitrust, newspapers.com, old fulton, newspaperarchive.com with no success. So frustrating that so many records in this period remain undigitized. SusunW (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry, forgot to ping you. SusunW (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking! TJMSmith (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kae Miller
The article Kae Miller you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kae Miller for comments about the article, and Talk:Kae Miller/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Eunice Newton Foote
I'm impressed at you taking this article to FA status, with such rich detail about her life and work. Things have certainly moved on since 2016 when I wasn't sure there was even enough reliable sourcing to support notability and initially created a redirect, and then struggled to find biographical information on her. Well done! Fences &amp;  Windows  13:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I say all the time that without women's studies programs advocacy that made academics begin to study women in the 1970s and digitization which is making sources available, most women's stories would still be unknown. She is the perfect example of how hard it is to write about historic women. The time has to be right for enough sources to be digitized and for writers and academics to find their lives compelling enough to write about. I hope that with time, even more of the details of her life will become available. SusunW (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Women cyclist biographies to article
@SusunW

How are you. It's many weeks I did not contact you.

This time, i.e. recently an article (Women's) Bicycling in Islam is collaboratively improved a bit from it's earlier status a week ago. By chance do you know some one who has worked on women cyclist biography articles and may help out this article with inputs and expansion if possible? &#32;Bookku (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * nice to see you here. I hope all is well and that the new year finds you healthy and happy. I know nothing about sports, but there is a wikiproject for that! WikiProject Women's sport. Perhaps someone there can help? SusunW (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I shall try that . Many thanks and happy editing &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Erna P. Harris
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool article. Thanks for starting it! Levivich (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Glad you enjoyed it. I loved learning about her, which in my opinion, is what writing is all about. SusunW (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding my thanks. I really enjoyed discovering and reading about this inspiring woman! CAVincent (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bertha McNeill
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bertha McNeill 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bertha McNeill
The article Bertha McNeill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bertha McNeill for comments about the article, and Talk:Bertha McNeill/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yella Hertzka
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yella Hertzka 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of SyntheticSystems -- SyntheticSystems (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cora Slocomb di Brazza
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cora Slocomb di Brazza 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of SyntheticSystems -- SyntheticSystems (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yella Hertzka
The article Yella Hertzka you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Yella Hertzka for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SyntheticSystems -- SyntheticSystems (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cora Slocomb di Brazza
The article Cora Slocomb di Brazza you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cora Slocomb di Brazza for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SyntheticSystems -- SyntheticSystems (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

GA nominations/discussion
Hello Susun, I just want to pop in and say I hope that I haven't given you the impression that you have been wasting anyone's time, either with your GA nominations or with the discussion you raised on the GA talk page. If I have done so, then I wholeheartedly apologize and want to firmly emphasize that you have not.

The irony of this whole thing is that I tend to do my reviews FAC-style, and I regularly go through GA for refinement before FAC. If I am frustrated, it is with the vagaries of the GA process, not at all with you. I hope you don't feel discouraged about making GA nominations as a result of this discussion. It's not my area of expertise, but your work appears both excellent and necessary. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , no worries. Thanks for reaching out. Sorry RL is crazy right now, so answers are slow and may be non-existent for several days. I have actually been impressed with how many people expressed differing views without the conversation devolving. I do think a lot of the problem is the vagueness of the guidelines and how they address expectations. What I am struggling with after reading the comments is whether my own expectations and processes are bogging down the system. I just need time to reflect on it and decide whether nominating is helping or hurting the encyclopedia. SusunW (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries! Take your time responding, RL is always more important.
 * There is nothing negative about your nominations. Contributing content and putting it through quality-review processes is never hurting the encyclopedia. The GA/FA systems exist to be used; good-faith nominations of content are the entire point. You cannot possibly be wasting resources or doing damage by using them as intended. (In the same way that you can't be wasting the police's time by making a good-faith 911 call - that's the entire point of the system.) That we have a backlog at GA/FA is sometimes frustrating, but in a way it's a good sign. A backlog means that these processes are seen as useful - people want to write good content, and they want their articles to be reviewed and marked as meeting a standard of quality. I'd rather there was a feast of excellent content to review than none, because it means the project is flourishing.
 * I feel terrible that you now feel your contributions may be hurting the project. I cannot possibly emphasize enough that this is not the case, especially because you're contributing quality content in a more obscure topic area. People like you are the backbone of this project, not a detriment to it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to add a +1 here; Susun, your contributions are incredibly valued and appreciated. I'm constantly astounded and amazed by the dedication and effort you put in, and sheer quality work you produce. You are, not just one of the good ones, one of the great ones around here. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your input. PMC, please don't feel bad. Your comments actually have been very beneficial. What I am struggling with at this point is whether I require too much of the process. I always try to couch reviews as a collaboration and make it clear whether any suggestion is required or not. For several years, I did not do reviews at all because I find it daunting. In the real world writing, proofing, fact checking, and critiquing are separate functions. We required editors to do all of that it one role. A couple of years ago I decided that if I was going to submit files for review, I needed to push myself to review. I am still not comfortable doing it because I cannot approach a review without my own standards coming in to play. My approach to life in general is to learn, i.e. I write to learn something, I review articles to learn something, etc. That said, is it possible for me to review a file by rote without a collaborative exchange to improve it? I am not sure that I could do that. I know that I am not happy when that is the kind of review I get. I feel cheated of an opportunity to learn something or benefit from someone else's perspective. To ask for a review, I feel like I need to reciprocate, so it's a dilemma. Anyway, that's where my head is, but I need to go, and get ready for that plane that's landing. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can definitely appreciate having one's own standards coming into play. I sometimes have trouble helping people with copyediting because I very much want to take over and just write what I would write :) I see how you feel about wanting an exchange of perspectives, and I understand better how my earlier comments in the WT:GAN discussion would be frustrating especially without having the context of the proposal drive.
 * I don't think anyone is expecting you to change your style and review by rote. Your approach of making thorough suggestions but noting that anything off the GACR will not be held against the article is the gold standard in my opinion. (Possibly I'm biased - that's pretty much how I do GA reviews). The distinction for me is that you and I mark those off-label ideas as explicitly optional/up for discussion.
 * My frustration is with reviewers that don't work that way. Many reviewers make requests that have nothing to do with the GACR but don't clearly label those suggestions as optional. This is confusing for editors who are expecting to be judged against the GACR and instead wind up faced with arbitrary requests that may differ from reviewer to reviewer. They may not have the confidence to push back or ask for a second opinion, especially if they're new. It also sets a confusing precedent for people trying to learn to review, because they're learning practices that technically aren't in GA's remit. (Then on the flip side you have your situation. There's a reason GA is said to have reviewer roulette.)
 * Until or unless we settle on some kind of standard for how GA reviews should be conducted, I think the suggestion raised at the WT:GAN discussion to place a note saying that you'd like in-depth feedback on your articles is a good one. (And before you feel that it would be demanding for you to do so - anyone not wishing to do so can simply skip your article and review something else.)
 * Anyway, have fun with your visitors! Hopefully flights are smooth :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that and if that's within the scope, then I shall just keep doing what I am doing. When I'm back, I'll find a nom that I ran across recently. It was declined by someone for being too short. Not for not meeting the criteria. Blew my mind. We need to make instructions clearer and possibly have coordinators (but not me) so that things like that don't happen. Anyway, I'm out again. Guests finally arrived last night. Plane was 4.5 hours late. Let's just say both passengers and picker uppers spent a whole day at the airport. But, on the bright side, once they got here it was a lovely evening. SusunW (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear about the flights, but I'm glad everything else is going well. Cheers! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Enriqueta Medellín
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

February songs
thank you! - yesterday's cantata, 300 years later --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lovely! Congrats. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! My stories today are about two pieces we sang at church, today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Very nice. I wish someday to hear you sing. SusunW (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Come over! Some say they hear me even in choir (which is not a good thing) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * today a book, Alte Liebe, for Valentine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds fascinating. My husband and I will be celebrating our 40th anniversary in October. We couldn't separate. 1) he's still the best thing that ever happened to me in life and 2) as independent as we both are, our lives are so intertwined that I am positive we wouldn't function well without each other ;) SusunW (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I love that! Give him a hug from me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That was easily done! SusunW (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for Theodora Kroeber, performed in collaboration, about a "writer, psychologist, and anthropologist. Referred to sometimes as the wife of well-known anthropologist Alfred Kroeber, Theodora built her own reputation as an author after starting to write in her fifties."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , thank you! In truth, it was mostly Vanamonde, but I was able to pull in the details to make her dimensional. My skill lies there. Who was the person behind the career. And yes, her life shows we can all invent ourselves again, no matter what circumstances are in our lives. SusunW (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, and thank you for it! - music today: the regional festival - DYK of 13 years ago ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you what a lovely way to return from my mini vacation. SusunW (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cora Slocomb di Brazza
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cora Slocomb di Brazza 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cora Slocomb di Brazza
The article Cora Slocomb di Brazza you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cora Slocomb di Brazza and Talk:Cora Slocomb di Brazza/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Helene Scheu-Riesz
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Helene Scheu-Riesz 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cora Slocomb di Brazza
The article Cora Slocomb di Brazza you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cora Slocomb di Brazza for comments about the article, and Talk:Cora Slocomb di Brazza/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Helene Scheu-Riesz
The article Helene Scheu-Riesz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Helene Scheu-Riesz for comments about the article, and Talk:Helene Scheu-Riesz/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I appreciate you constancy and encouragement. SusunW (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I try, not always successfully - see Jenny Lind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We can only try the best we can. The comments on Lind make me sad. I have no opinion either way on the issue there as I have a love/hate relationship with boxes. I usually include them, but find in general a whole lot of drive by people are obsessed with them and adding scraps which keep people from reading the entirety for context. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For Jenny Lind, the community achieved what I consider the best compromise: a concise ibox. On the English Wikipedia, the MoS almost seems to rely on such a box, recommending that the lead has only years of birth and death (while the German Wikipedia prescribes that precise data about birth and death are in the first sentence of the lead). The reverts of scraps is nothing specific to an ibox, - we have to watch our articles, all of them. While Lind is at peace (because as long as I watch the - unneccessary - drama, no infobox established by RfC has ever been reverted or even questioned), Robert the diable is not. The comments make me sad because they come from a user I respect. I really thought these personal feuds had ended by 2019 when project opera dropped the recommendation of no infobox (and that was for biographies, nor operas. There can't be added scrap for operas because the template is concise per design). All major operas have an infobox, even Joseph, - looking at the discussion: shaking head at how grown-ups can spend their time, really ;) - DYK that today - for the first time - I picked my daily article from missing WiR opera singers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue, truly, why people behave as they do. I just have no time to be involved in the drama boards of WP. Too many articles to write and even if I did respond, no one would listen. A big chunk of participants just need to be "right". Fighting for change on here is a losing battle. Easier just to keep my head down and work. SusunW (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Understand, just it's no drama board but an article talk page where a BRD discussion is going on, and a solution by that discussion seems more desirable than another RfC, which - sadly - often resembles a drama board. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen several talk pages turn into drama boards. I cannot for the life of me understand why. Our goal should always be to present the highest quality article that we can write at any given time. It's about the information in the article and how accessible it is. If we lose sight of that, we are failing in our purpose. That should be the only questions we ask, IMO, but the community focus is often not on the quality. SusunW (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The Reviewer Barnstar

 * Thank you,, I appreciate it. I do try to be thorough, but I always try to remember it is a collaboration. I actually just review like I write an article. I pull up each source, or all of them I can find access to anyway, and read through them. Serves 2 purposes, checking for copyvio and verification. Reviewing is hard. SusunW (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This does not surprise me at all. Justly rewarded. You are simply the best, Susun. :) -- A Rose Wolf  18:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have missed you my friend. Glad to see winter is going, . I am not the best, just possibly very OCD about verifications, which works out well then to observe copy violation potential. SusunW (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And your modesty is refreshing and appreciated, still, we all are best at something. This is a gift you have, a part of your Song, whether you call it OCD or something else. It should be celebrated so I celebrate you, my friend. We have several more weeks of deep negative temps and snow before we start to see the valley thaw out but I am excited to once again taste my wildflower salads. -- A Rose Wolf  19:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We have had a glorious winter. Never got below 23C/73F, which made me happy. Okay, admittedly I was in a sweater any time it dipped below 28C/82F, but never once did I suffer frozen fingers. SusunW (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Kae Miller
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eugénie Hamer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eugénie Hamer 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eugénie Hamer
The article Eugénie Hamer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eugénie Hamer for comments about the article, and Talk:Eugénie Hamer/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Virginia Tango Piatti
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Virginia Tango Piatti 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)