Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green

Gender gap in Vital Articles
As WiG is focused on core articles about women, I thought I'd take a wee look at the gender gap in the list of vital articles. What I found was sadly unsurprising. Of each of the biographical categories, only one (entertainers, et al) represents women at above the Wikipedia-wide average of 19.64%, with 33.7% of its entries being women. For the others, women make up:
 * 19.6% of artists, musicians, and composers;
 * 18.8% of sports figures;
 * 18.8% of writers and journalists;
 * 14.3% of military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists;
 * 13.6% of miscellaneous entries;
 * 9.1% of philosophers, historians, political and social scientists;
 * 7.3% of politicians and leaders;
 * 7% of religious figures;
 * 6.1% of scientists, inventors, and mathematicians.

This means women together make up roughly 16.4% of level-5 articles, dropping down to 10.3% of of level-4 vital articles and then even further to only 9% of level-3 vital articles.

All this has gotten me thinking about how we can close the gap a little on the vital articles list. As women were most under-represented in the category of scientists and mathematicians, I opened a discussion about adding some more glaring omissions. But even if all of my suggestions were added, this would only bring it in line with politicians and religious figures. If we wanted to bring the gap up to the Wikipedia-wide average, then (not accounting for removals) we would need to add over 500 women to the V5 list; about 180 women to the V4 list; and at least 10 women to the V3 list. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have two thoughts. First, having tried to get involved in VA last year, I found the whole thing to be an arbitrary, meaningless mess. It's just an effect of that natural desire to rank things, even if the rankings don't make sense. This is doubly the case for the free-for-all V5 list. Second, how would we decide the target percentage for a given category before we consider it representative? Throughout history, what percentage of politicians and leaders have been women? What if we only limit it to the really historically consequential ones at the level of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Queen Victoria, and Mao Zedong (notice the pattern)? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I had the same problems with vital articles. There is no criteria for selecting who is vital, it is an entirely arbitrary choice of the editors on that page. The second issue is that since women's history is not taught in basic history courses, there are two streams of women that one needs to evaluate #1 women who were critical for the development of women and #2 women who were consequential in world history. These may not be the same. So for example, Mary Wollstonecraft, Carrie Chapman Catt, Aletta Jacobs, Simone de Beauvoir etc. are huge figures in women's history and the recognition of women as part of humanity, but most people who have only studied general history have no idea who they were. Because women were categorized in the group "Criminals, lunatics, women, and children", I would argue that those who changed the perception of the world about 1/2 the people in the world were far more critical to our collective history than a leader of a single country, warrior, etc. but I would lose that argument, because the criteria of vital consequence is defined in general history terms – war, politics, economics, technology – rather than social development. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Social development is certainly part of general history no less than politics, economics etc. are. However, a 'change of perceptions' is something vague, gradual and difficult to attribute to a specific person. It's hard to prove that most of the specific individuals you mentioned have played a decisive role even just for the change of perceptions, since the same ideas were expressed at the same time by many (of both genders). When it comes to actual changes in legislation concerning women, political leaders are the ones who effect the change - while also doing the same in many other areas. And political leaders during most of history have been men. The changes produced by Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon and Mao were much more sudden, radical and clearly associated with these individuals personally than the gradual shift in attitudes and legislation concerning women. Even in the sphere of letters and philosophy, leading figures like Voltaire have contributed to more fundamental changes that aren't limited to any specific group of people, and which ultimately have had consequences for all groups. Women's rights were just one logical extension of the general principles of liberalism and democracy that, again, had been introduced and championed most prominently by men.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed with both SusunW and Thebiguglyalien on the erratic nature of the Vital Articles list, especially at the lower levels. It's not really clear to me how one is meant to determine what the 10,000 "most vital" encyclopedic articles are, but some of the entries on that list just... aren't.  I don't think that many people really pay attention to the vital article lists anyway, so any effort spent determining who should and should not be on them is largely wasted – doing virtually anything else on wikipedia is probably more productive.  (Personally, whenever I have looked at the people on the VA lists from ancient Greece and Rome I've come away baffled by both who is missing and who is listed, but I generally think that any time I spend on discussing that could be better spent improving the articles in question...) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * -- I'm glad to see you got some support for your VA suggestions to boost those numbers a bit. I find it interesting to see those low percentages (although definitely not surprising!). I feel like the only practical way to bump up percentages of women in VA to the Wikipedia-wide average would be to propose a big collective addition/adjustment to the VA quotas, rather than adding individual women one at a time. In principle, I'd like to see more women in the lists -- but as per the above comments, it's not clear how we would choose articles as more or less "vital," and I'm not sure how many editors pay attention to VA, either. My current thinking is that group events/drives are a better way to energize work on notable articles about women. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobel Prizewinner Katalin Karikó needs attention
The biography of the recent Nobel Prizewinner in Medicine, Katalin Karikó, would benefit from the attention of this project. Perhaps someone would like to nominate it for GA. If so, although I am no expert in medicine, I would be happy to help with copy editing. Initial work should in particular remove citations from the lead and make sure they are appropriately included in the body of the article. It may be sensible to wait for a few days until details from continuing press coverage have been added to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ipigott: Sorry I missed this! Only seen now I archived most of this year's discussions. :/ Since you left this note, the article seems to have grown a fair amount. As you're the main contributor, would you be interested in taking this article to GA? --Grnrchst (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, . I still think it could be brought up to GA without too much difficulty but I would appreciate the assistance of contributors from WiG. I would be happy to help it along if others are interested.--Ipigott (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The Hot 100
There are currently three vacancies on the Hot 100. Since the project is getting an influx of new participants this week, I figure this is as good a time as any to make sure the Hot 100 actually has 100 articles. Is there a usual process for moving future suggestions up? I could see there being disagreement about what names to add, and I see a few in the future suggestions list that should probably be removed rather than promoted. Nearly a third of the suggestions seem to be Sri Lankan women added by one person without regard for how prominent they are (I'm tempted to WP:BOLDly remove that part of the list). And another thought, for months where there's not an editathon, maybe we could start choosing a "woman of the month" from the Hot 100 where everyone collaborates on that specific article during the month to get it closer to GA. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If no one has any objections, I went ahead and promoted Yoko Ono, Indira Ghandi, and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela up to the Hot 100—they seemed like obvious choices since they're well known figures and it allows for some diversity on the list. I also removed some lesser known figures from the suggestions list: about a dozen Sri Lankan women, a few Italian architects, and a few German textile artists. These three types seem to have been mass added without consideration for whether the individuals were as historically influential as the other names on the list, and they threw off the balance of what nationalities are included in the list. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of choosing an "article of the month" to help make some progress through the list. I wasn't around when the Hot 100 list was started, but I think the initial idea was simply to add women who are listed in the Vital Articles project. Since the Vital Articles process is a bit questionable/unclear, I don't know that it's the best process for promoting new articles to the Hot 100 -- but I do support adding more diversity to the list, as we have lots of Western actresses/entertainers and royalty included, but fewer women from different occupations and other parts of the world. Maybe in future we can identify areas where the list is lacking and purposely add notable women from those areas. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , this might be worth revisiting since we're nearing the end of the month. Maybe we can gauge interest to see how many editors would help out if we picked an article to work on through the month of November. Of course, that may depend on which article we would choose as well. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien: I can't speak for others, but sometimes I'm reluctant to start big projects at the end of the calendar year (worn out and looking towards the holidays!). Choosing a Hot 100 article may be best left for the new year -- but maybe we can at least start by deciding on a process? What if a different editor takes on the lead role each month: choose the article, assess what needs to be done, draw up a list of "actions" needed, and monitor the article's progress as other editors contribute? We could start a planning process now and try to choose 2-3 articles (and lead editors) for the first few months of 2024. Happy to see what you and other WiG participants think. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of geographical distribution, the Hot 100 contains 42 American women and 76 women from the Western world as a whole. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29: This definitely reflects my impressions of the list (and probably the general bias of Wikipedia as a whole, as well). Thanks for checking! Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In contrast, about half of the women in our "Future suggestions" section are from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe or Latin America. I'd definitely support rejigging the Hot 100 to include more women that aren't from North America and Western Europe. More diversity of options might attract more attention. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Summer 2023 backlog
As our 5th edit-a-thon is drawing to an end, I thought I'd move the backlog list over from there. Below are the GA nominations from June-September 2023 that are still waiting for a review:


 * 🇺🇸 (22 July 2023)
 * 🇺🇸 (31 July 2023)

Please feel free to look over any and help get this backlog down! --Grnrchst (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Two more left! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Given name articles
I am considering to improve some articles about Dutch given names. I've recently nominated Femke as good article. It is not very long, but I don't think such articles have to be, although the GA review could prove me wrong. Are there more people here interested in improving articles about women's given names? – Editør (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The article Femke has passed the GA review, and I hope it can be an example for more green feminine given name articles. – Editør (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Editør: Wow, nice work with this! I'm so used to seeing given name articles as little more than disambiguation pages, so I'm very impressed by the level of detail in this article. It may be worth getting in touch with the folk over at WikiProject Anthroponymy, if you're interested in expanding more of these articles. Their top-rated articles on women's given names are Begum, Chloe, Emma, Joanne, Margaret, Mary and Sarah. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not sure how active the anthroponymy project is, but thanks for the suggestion. It will surely be more challenging for more international names like Sarah to make them green, but I see no reason why an article about a given name should merely be a disambiguation page. — Editør (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, I also have been improving some feminine given name articles, I have currently Tamara (given name) as a GA nomination.  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 12:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice! I don't think I have time to review it right now, but I will give you some suggestions for improvement on your talk page. – Editør (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What to do about Hatshepsut?
Hatshepsut is in our hot 100 and is one of the the few level-3 vital articles on women that haven't yet been brought to GA or FA (along with Frida Kahlo, Catherine the Great and Florence Nightingale). In January 2023, Gingermead posted a request for input on our talk page and opened a peer review regarding the work they had done on Hatshepsut, with the intention of nominating it for GA. However, Gingermead was blocked not long after opening the peer review, as the account was found to have been a sock-puppet of a user that had been banned a year before for abusing multiple accounts.

This leaves us with a problem, as the article's main contributor (with 31.9% of authorship) can't take it any further and none of the other contributors have authored more than 10% of the article, which is the threshold for one to not be considered a drive-by nomination. Given how far this article has already come and how important it is to our project, would anyone here be interested in adopting it for further work and a possible future GA nom? It would be really good if we could get this one over the line. -- Grnrchst (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Matooskie
Article on a Canadian First Nations woman which has now turned green and is submitted for DYK nom (Template:Did you know nominations/Matooskie). If anyone has any improvements they wish to make to the article, comments, or input at the DYK nom please let me know! Thank you GnocchiFan (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WiG End-of-Year Reflection & Planning for 2024
Hi everyone! We're approaching the end of 2023, so I'm just starting a thread here to discuss WiG goals from this year and for next year. We've powered our way through 2023 Goals #1, #2, #3 and #4 (big thank you to our newest project members for their contributions). This year we also introduced Goal #5 to boost group peer reviews of Peer Review requests and Featured Article Candidates, and I think we've just reached our goal of reviews for 15 articles -- most received feedback from at least two WiG participants (and all from at least one). If you have a chance, please take a look at the Peer Review request for Pamela Stephenson, which has been open for three months but only has comments from one WiG reviewer.

Planning for 2024: That's it for now -- I hope you all are safe and well and looking forward to the holiday season. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What goals or events would you like to see next year? What worked in 2023 and what could be improved? Personally, I liked the PR & FAC group reviewing goal, but I think the system for tracking these reviews on our Goals page was maybe a bit clunky. We also need a better way of flagging new relevant PR and FAC review requests so they're not lost or going unnoticed. On another note, our GA editathons went well, and I thought the October 2023 "Around the World in 31 Days" event had a strong boost in attendance/engagement (great promotional support from WiG members!). We had a ton of requests for 20-minute assessments, and I handed out a total of 20 barnstars to eligible participants afterwards, as compared to our usual 13.
 * Any suggestions for our next themed GA nominations goal (#1)? We usually follow Women in Red's annual theme -- I don't think they've chosen one yet, so we're free to wait or come up with an alternative.
 * Any ideas on how to make progress on our Hot 100 List? This has been raised by multiple editors. I know these articles are a lot of work, and many WiG participants (including myself) have mixed feelings about how they are chosen or not chosen for inclusion on this list, but it's true that these articles tend to have high viewership numbers, and I think it's worthwhile bringing their writing, sourcing, and accuracy up to higher standard. I had a chat with earlier this year (see thread), and he suggested we could try choosing a "woman of the month" from our Hot 100 List each month and collectively work to improve that article. I like the idea -- if we did that, I'm thinking it would be helpful having a different editor act as project lead for each month's article (assess the work needed, track the work completed, etc). All feedback or other suggestions welcome.
 * Who would like to volunteer for our 20-minute assessment team going forward? This initiative provides 20-minute "mini-reviews" for articles (on request) before they are formally nominated for GA status, in order to catch any major issues and prevent frustrating quick-fail situations. Volunteers should have gone through the GA process a few times prior as a nominator or reviewer, just to ensure strong familiarity with GA reviews and criteria. We've talked about keeping this feature open outside of editathon events, so that's on my list for the new year. I'm thinking we may want to adjust the promised response time for requests to 5-7 days instead of 48 hours (to keep it more sustainable for volunteers).


 * I think WiG has done really well this year and will no doubt continue to build on its success next year. I'd love to continue being part of the 20 minute assessment team and as I said already elsewhere I'd be fine to have it open all the time - it seems to provide a useful function in that editors who are new to the arcane and confusing GA process can get some advice. For me personally, I had a bad review GA experience from Vanamonde (interestingly enough a fellow twenty minute assessment team member) who put me through an arcane and confusing process; this stopped me submitting more articles for GA and indeed participating in anything except the twenty minute assessments; I'm sorry I didn't help more with "Around the World in 31 Days" as I had originally offered to do.
 * I do see myself doing WiG-related work at FAC and PR, since there the work is more collaborative and involves more people. I don't really need events or challenges as a motivation, I sort of bumble around and hit things of interest to pursue, but I would support WiG taking (even) more time to consider righting the systemic biases of wikipedia. I have very much enjoyed working with WiG stalwarts such as your good self Alanna the Brave, BotL, Grnchrst and SusunW. I hope to meet more people next year and will do my best to avoid forming cliques, we really must continue to be welcoming to newcomers. Finally, I would love to collaborate with other editors in bringing an article to FA standard as co-nominators - that strikes me as something that could be really enjoyable. Mujinga (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think having a permanent pointer to editors willing to give pre-GA feedback on the 20-minute-review model is a good idea, and I'd be willing to put my name down for that. Congratulations to everyone who has done the hard work writing and reviewing GAs this year – as I recall it was a slow start, but the numbers for both wildcard GA noms and GA reviews are our best yet by some margin. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I forgot about the Sappho PR in mentioning enjoyable collaborations Caeciliusinhorto! Any plans to take that to FAC? Mujinga (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My plan is still to take it to FAC, but I haven't done any further work on the article since the peer review closed, and I have some big real-life things going on at the moment to occupy my time – I'd like to do some more work on it in the coming year, though. There are still a few articles on her works which I haven't got around to bringing to GA (Ode to Aphrodite, Sappho 31, Sappho 44 and Sappho 96 IIRC; Poetry of Sappho could go to FL if I put the work in to update all of the lists based on Neri's edition), and at least a couple of the poem articles could be brought to FA (Tithonus poem would need major work but is probably the easiest). So yes, there's plenty of Sappho to keep me occupied on wikipedia in the next year!
 * Outside of Sappho, I've been working over the last couple of years on the canon of Greek women poets. Of the remaining four Nossis is next on the list; Moero and Praxilla might be doable, but I fear Myrtis is just impossible to write a GA on because the scholarship isn't there. There's also women in ancient Sparta that I have been poking at for even longer than Sappho. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I too am really happy with the progress we've made this year in improving articles about women. As Mujinga said "I don't really need events or challenges as a motivation", as I have dedicated most of my life to writing women back into the historic record. I have genuinely enjoyed the collaborations this year on peace activists and pushed myself to do more reviews. (I don't like doing them any more than I ever have, question my own neutrality/skill each time I do one, but I am learning to be a tiny bit more comfortable in critiquing others' work.) Because I tend to focus on controversial figures, I appreciate the input of reviewers and collaborators to ensure that they are balanced. I've worked with several editors I had never before collaborated with and enjoyed those experiences. So, I intend to keep pushing myself to do reviews across the board, but that said, I would be useless at a 20- minute assessment, because it would take me at least a day to consolidate my thoughts. WiR is leaning toward education as its annual theme and given the high participation of women in the field, it seems like it would offer many opportunities for a theme. That said, perhaps we do away with the themed event, as besides myself with collaborators, only 3 other articles were nominated for the theme. Just a thought. I'll probably never work on Hot 100 women, mainly because high number of views does not in the least equate to historical importance. Probably just me, but I don't want to encourage the focus of quantity over quality on the whole platform in a project devoted to quality. ( do you speak/read Greek? There are activists from there on my radar, but I'd need a collaborator and I know they are waaaaay outside your historic period.) SusunW (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, afraid I can't help with Greek. I tend to agree with you on the annual theme – it's always the area which sees the least interest. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To bounce off what Mujinga and SusunW said. For me, edit-a-thons aren't so much a source of motivation as they are a source of focus. I'm often overwhelmed by the magnitude of the work we have ahead of us, so stuff like Women in Red's alphabet edit-a-thons help narrow my focus enough that I feel capable of tackling what I have in front of me. This is particularly why I liked the most recent edit-a-thon, as it got me thinking about different women from various different regions that I'd been wanting to improve the articles on but never felt like I had the time. I eventually ended up improving to GA biographies on a woman from each continent except Antarctica!
 * As for the themed goal, I'd be happy to follow along with Women in Red's proposed education focus. It's an area that women have contributed a lot to. I really like the idea of doing a woman of the month event for our Hot 100, as improving these articles as part of a collective effort may help a lot in making the effort seem less daunting. Personally I also hope we can do a bit of a stock take with the Hot 100, as there's an awful lot of modern American actors and singers on there; personally I have next to no interest in any of them. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mujinga, Caeciliusinhorto, SusunW, and Grnrchst: Happy new year! Thank you for all your feedback and suggestions. I'm going to tackle setting up our 2024 Goal Tracking page today. I think it is a fair comment that our themed goals haven't attracted many editors (it's usually only one or two folks who tackle the majority of them each year), so I'll support combining our GA nominations into one annual goal for 2024. Maybe we can save the theme of women educators for one of our GA editathons? Later this month, I'll shift my attention toward experimenting with a long-term 20-Minute Assessments page and some sort of set-up for a Hot 100 "Women of the Month" page -- the latter may not be of interest to everyone (and that's totally fine), but I'm still interested to see if it helps us progress through some of the larger women's biographies. As always, please do raise any new ideas/comments/concerns about WiG activities as we continue, and feel free to say so if you would like a more direct role in setting up or maintaining things. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of things I think I could do to help maintain the project, I'm probably going to go forward with doing quarterly backlog summaries of unreviewed GA nominations, like the one above. I think if we can collectively do better at cutting down on the backlog, that may help encourage more people to nominate their articles on women and women's works. (I know I find long wait times for GA reviews a little discouraging.) I'm also happy to help out where I can for edit-a-thons, I think a specific education-focused one rather than a year-long theme might be better. Personally I often forgot that the year-long drive existed last year. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Lashauwn Beyond
I've nominated Lashauwn Beyond for GA status, if any project members are interested in reviewing or otherwise improving. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Any interest? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to! Expect me there by Sunday. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Averageuntitleduser Someone else has picked up the review, but thanks for offering! Another time :) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed! And I can't complain, the more reviews the merrier. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Emmy Noether
I have nominated Emmy Noether for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Working to create a Good Topic of women legislators...
at User:Ezlev/Women in the Hawaii Territorial Legislature. Lots of work to be done if anyone is interested! — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you know if there are any sources that cover the topic as a whole, or could otherwise be used for several of them? I've found that makes this sort of thing a lot easier. I see Peterson's Notable Women of Hawaii, but of course this topic is also a little more niche. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Rewards for Good Articles
Hi all, I've put up an offer on the Reward Board which may be of interest. Basically, I'll give the Systemic bias barnstar to anyone who gets an article listed in Women in the Australian House of Representatives or Women in the Australian Senate to GA status. Ping me if you complete one :) GraziePrego (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Autumn 2023 backlog
There's still work to do on the summer backlog! But as the seasons continue to change, I thought I'd compile our backlog for the autumn season of 2023 as well. This includes leftovers from our last edit-a-thon.


 * 🇨🇦 (27 October 2023)
 * 🇺🇸 (31 October 2023)
 * 🇺🇸 (7 November 2023)
 * 🇺🇸 (21 November 2023)
 * 🇺🇸 (11 December 2023)
 * 🇺🇸 (11 December 2023)
 * 🇺🇸 (17 December 2023)

Please do help review these articles if and when you can. The quicker we can cut down on the backlog, the more incentive people have to submit their articles on women and women's works! Grnrchst (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now cut all of the nominations that have been reviewed, thanks to everyone that took on those! December list has now been restored. Let's get this backlog down! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Bahbah
Hello all! I just found out about this WikiProject and came over here to see about contributing. I already submitted an article I wrote about a woman for GA review this month (and also submitted it for DYK) so I guess I was already kinda contributing without realizing, LOL. But anyway, I'm here because I spent a pretty good chunk of time last night improving the article for photographer Sarah Bahbah. (It came up as a suggestion for editing on my homepage, I worked on it until I felt the flag templates on it didn't apply anymore and removed them.) I don't think the article is really at GA level yet, and in particular I think a lot more could be added to the Career section, but I had already stayed up way later than I meant to working on it and I needed to go to bed hahaha. But yeah, just bringing it to the attention of the folks here in case anyone wants to pick up where I left off and expand the article more. Not a priority since she's not on the Hot 100. :) KRKwrites (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Welcome @KRKwrites! Glad you found us. :-) If you want to, you're welcome to add Abigail Larson to our 2024 Goal Tracking page (we're aiming to collectively nominate at least 75 articles for GA status this year). Let us know if you have any questions or need feedback on GA projects going forward -- we're happy to help. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! I forgot to take your suggestion and add the article to the Goal Tracking page beforehand, but I did manage get Abigail Larson to GA status :) Is there somewhere I should record that? KRKwrites (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if you list it before review as icon|GAR or after icon|GA. SusunW (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Scope of the project
Are any articles about women that become GA within the scope of the project? Are candidates for GA within the scope? Governor Sheng (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Governor Sheng! The Women in Green project scope covers all articles about women and women's works (e.g., books, films or artwork by women). We include candidates for GA under that scope as well, yes -- we're focused on the work of article improvement (every little bit helps), and once an article about women or women's works has been improved and formally nominated for GA status, the nominator is welcome to list the article under Goal #1 of our annual group goals page. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I have added Qutui Khatun to the WikiProject, however, I don't know to which event it should be connected to... Governor Sheng (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Governor Sheng: if it's not connected to a specific event, you can tag it by year by adding a "date=2024" parameter to our project talk page tag. However, most Women in Green editors wait until the article has been nominated for GA before tagging it this way (if the review is ultimately unsuccessful, you can still leave the Women in Green tag on -- it just helps us track which articles within our scope have gone through the GA nomination process). Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming GAN Backlog Drive in March
There's an upcoming month-long drive to review GA nominations and reduce the backlog, and I've spotted a few Women in Green members who have signed up so far -- this would be a good opportunity to tackle some of the leftover 2023 GA nominations about women that has been tracking (see summer and autumn lists!). If anyone is thinking about giving reviewing a try for the first time but isn't sure where to start, you can check out the official reviewing instructions or ask for advice right here at WiG. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's barely been a week and the summer list is almost done! --Grnrchst (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Summer list now down to only 2 entries, autumn list down to 25! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The core contest returns
The core contest is back and ... since the 2021 reboot we've not improved a single biography of a woman during the contest and I was hoping somebody here would be willing to break the streak.

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—runs from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. There is GB£300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Wow, not one since 2021? This won't do. I have decided to improve our article on Voltairine de Cleyre, which I think could do with a lot of work. I hope others in this project will consider submitting something they've had their eye on! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome choice, looking forward to what you contribute!  Aza24  (talk)   06:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Next edit-a-thon?
Hey all, hope everyone's had a good start to their new year. I've been thinking lately about getting started with the coordination for our next edit-a-thon. Per our discussions some time last year, I figured it would be a good idea to do a "Back in time" theme this year, focusing on women throughout history in order to address our tendency towards recentism. Like the Around the World edit-a-thon, when we had a map showing pins in each country where we nominated or reviewed articles about women and women's works, I was thinking we could have a timeline template set up that shows our progress on articles throughout history.

Provisionally setting the date for June 2024, would anyone else here be interested in joining in and/or helping out with this? I'm more than happy to take the lead on this one, in order to give @Alanna the Brave a bit of a break, but I just wanted to gauge interest before setting up the page. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea. I wonder if there's a way to help people find articles for this. I imagine it's easier to find articles about women from a specific country than from a specific century. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 19:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's Category:Women by century to help find women from a particular century. Category:Ancient women, Category:Medieval women and Category:Renaissance women may also be of use. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Aside from the categories mentioned above, we also have listicales like the list of women's firsts, timeline of women in science, women in warfare, etc. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the lead! I appreciate it. :-) June sounds good -- I like the idea of a "Back in time" theme, and I'm happy to help out as needed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, event page is now up at WikiProject Women in Green/Meetup/6! Feel free to sign yourselves up. If anybody is up to take on 20-minute reviews this year, please feel free to add your name to that section. If anything needs adjusting on the page, or in the underlying documentation, please ping me and I'll see to it whenever I can. I'll start sending out invites for the event over the coming month, hopefully we can get a decent turnout. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Grnrchst: The page looks great! Would you like me to arrange for a new barnstar graphic for the event? I can also request a watchlist ad later in May, as with our last editathon (I think it worked well in attracting new participants). Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alanna the Brave: Yes please! That would be very helpful. (I wasn't even aware watchlist ads were something we could request) --Grnrchst (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Grnrchst: Alrighty -- I'll tackle that, and will ping you when I make the requests. I just learned about watchlist ads last year, and I believe they only stay up for 1-2 weeks at a time, so we can do that shortly before the editathon starts. Let me know if you have any other questions about event promo, etc. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested!! I have been thinking on improving Qiu Jin for some time and this would be a good opportunity to do so!  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 12:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Really looking forward to this. As an aside, something I think I've mentioned before: the Hot 100 seems rather biased towards the modern/the American/the cultural. Perhaps some of the entries could be swapped with those on the "Future suggestions" list? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Winter 2024 backlog
Hi everyone, hope you've all been doing well these past few months. It's almost May, so I've had a look at our backlog of GA nominations of articles on women and women's works. Here's what we've got to work on:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (19 January 2024)
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇺🇸 (20 January 2024)
 * 🇰🇷 (24 February 2024)
 * 🇺🇸 (26 February 2024)
 * 🇺🇸 (5 March 2024)
 * 🇺🇸 (9 March 2024)
 * 🇺🇸 (10 March 2024)
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 (19 March 2024)
 * 🇺🇸 (20 March 2024)
 * 🇺🇸 (21 March 2024)
 * 🇬🇷 (25 March 2024)
 * 🇭🇰 (25 March 2024)
 * 🇺🇸 (28 March 2024)
 * 🇯🇵 (31 March 2024)

If you're interested in taking one of these on for review, please do! Remember we also have articles to review from last year, so check out the above lists as well. I hope you find something interesting to read about in these articles, and hope to see the backlog cut down a bit as well! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Katherine Routledge
We have a mediocre article on pioneering archaeologist Katherine Routledge on enwiki, but fr:Katherine Routledge is GA- if not FA-level. If there is anyone who is interested in expanding it by translating from French, it could be an easy win for WiG. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)