Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Archive 1

Hot 100
I think it would be good to know what each of those articles on the list get a month in traffic. The most visited ones perhaps should be more of a priority first? I'll try to add the figures slowly, perhaps could help?♦  Dr. Blofeld  14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contest
I think long term we're going to need contests running for this. Very few people actually work on the central core articles. Understandable, but they still need to be researched and written.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would try to participate in a contest. Anything particular in mind?


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Adding 2 names to Hot 100
Two articles from the Hot 100 were recently promoted to Good Article status. Most of the names on the Hot 100 are drawn from this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/People. I see a couple of women's names on the vital level 4 list that are missing from ours, but I haven't done an exhaustive review. I would definitely prefer to try and pick women from fields or backgrounds that are underrepresented on our current list. Knope7 (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see some more Asian names - there's particularly few in a very US/Europe-dominated list. Indira Gandhi, Corazon Aquino or Benazir Bhutto would be great as far as important leaders go, but a non-politician or two would be good too. Also Sirimavo Bandaranaike - the world's first female head of government and often overlooked. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with all of those . I'm not too sure we follow anyone else's list, the systemic biases in creating them are real. When one can compare the importance in history of someone like Simón Bolivar to the lack of English-speaking sports personnel, it's clear that there is a problem. I'd like to see more Caribbean and Latina names as well some that readily come to mind are Hilda Bynoe, Pearlette Louisy, Juana Inés de la Cruz, Clara González, Ángela Acuña Braun SusunW (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be worth aiming to have a list with equal numbers of women from each of the different continents (i.e. North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania)? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd love that and if anyone is interested, I am going to start work on Vera Gedroitz. She fits WiR's editathons on Russia and LGBT this month and clearly is a notable figure. The existing article is in bad shape and needs attention. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hot 100 is almost exclusively derived from the Vital articles list I linked. I am sure. Knope7 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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


 * I think it's an interesting idea. I am a bit scared off the promotion process because it seems so demanding and in my areas of interest I'd probably be the only contributor, but I'd be willing to give it a shot. I might be able to help with spotlighting too, depending on the area and my time constraints. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting ! I just got my first Good Articles promoted in 2017 and I'm up to 4 now. How demanding the process is seems to depend on the reviewer, but it's not as overwhelming as it looks. While I'm no expert, I'd be happy to help share what I've picked up along the way.


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


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


 * - I'd be very interested to hear your experience with GA. Might make it less daunting to try to have a go at (and I'm probably not the only one!) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * you can check individual GAs yourself pretty easily for the date of promotion – it will be on the talkpage of the article. Taking two of the articles that Wizardman added the other day entirely at randon, Anggun has been a GA since 2012; Éva Gauthier, since 2007. I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult to automate some analysis of this, if we have any programmers watching this talkpage...
 * in some ways, a niche area of interest where you are the only contributor makes it easier to get things up to GA standard - there's not so much vandalism to deal with, and there's no problem with having to deal with other editors who fundamentally disagree with you about what the article should include, or what weight a particular source should be given, or whatever. For your first GA, I think the trick is to choose a subject which is specific enough that you aren't having to deal with a mountain of sources and end up writing a 5,000+ word article, but there are enough sources that you can easily write 1,000-1,500 words. While there's no actual word limit for GA, as soon as you drop below that threshold (and possibly even above it!) you'll get people side-eying your article purely because it's short. (My article Midnight poem is 992 words, and the hardest part was finding enough to say about the poem; but on the other hand I was able to read pretty much everything in English that has ever been written on the poem, and cite most of it; by contrast with Sappho three times as many works are cited and that only scratches the surface on what has been written about her).
 * If you (or other people reading this!) have questions about the GA process (or just want an article you have worked on looked over with a fresh set of eyes if you are thinking of putting it up for GA), do feel free to message me; I have had 10 articles promoted and reviewed 12 (and am currently conducting a 13th review and waiting for a nomination to be picked up...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to tackle Alice Paul this year, if anyone is interested. For me, it is much easier to start from scratch, than wade through checking all the existing sourcing to ensure it supports the statements, reformatting it to more user-friendly harv refs, and rework an existing article. But in this case, she had a major impact on women's rights in the US and it needs to be done. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who responded. I'm thrilled to see there's interest! (Dover's Wife, I intend to write out some of my thoughts on being new to the GA process in the next few days.) I will throw out some options below, please let me know if any sound appealing. We can always tweak the numbers a bit if they feel too high or too low. I would also like to hear any opinions of setting goals for nominations verses promotions because nominations can linger for months. Feel free to add any other ideas. Knope7 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - have project members nominate 25 articles in 2018
 * Option 2 - have project members nominate 2 articles per month in 2018
 * Option 3 - achieve 800 Good Articles on women overall in 2018 (currently at 735)
 * Option 4 - spotlight 1 Hot 100 article per month (possibly tied to current events or Women in Red editathon)
 * Option 5 - nominate 6 Hot 100 articles in 2018
 * Option 3's my favourite, then 1, then 2. The Hot 100 articles are much harder to contribute to because they're such expansive topics, and the systemic bias in that list would probably count me out because there's no one from my region or even most of Asia. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I prefer option 1 to option 3 because it's more immediate. We would be able to count articles as soon as they ready for nomination. Articles can sit at GA nominations for several months. To fill out my suggestion for option 1 a little, I would suggest counting any nomination for an article that is within the scope of the project so long as 1) the nominator consents to including it; 2) the nominator is either a major contributor or left a note on the talk page before nominating; and 3) the article is not quick failed. I'd be ok including articles that are nominated in good faith but ultimately fail because I think even a failed nomination can be progress. Knope7 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I will set up a page for a goal of nominating 25 articles on women for GA. My idea is to set up a page like the Women in Red editathons. Participation would be entirely voluntary. Knope7 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I have finally drafted a page to track progress, currently in my sandbox here. Please feel free to make improvements or suggestions. Knope7 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have moved the page out of my sandbox to WikiProject Women/Women in Green/Goal Tracking/2018. I would love to add the first article, however, I am still probably a month away from nominating my next article, Alexis Herman. Once I do a little more clean-up, I plan to send it to the Guild of Copy Editors. If anyone would like to help with some of the citation needed tags or expanding her post-government career, it would be appreciated. Also, I am looking to work on vital article Bonnie Blair, a U.S. speed skater, during the Olympics as I assume that article will garner a lot of traffic. I would welcome any collaborators there was well. Knope7 (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I'm rather new to the Women-in-Green project (I've mostly focused on creating new articles for Women-in-Red before now), but I'm interested in helping boost the number of GA articles about women this year. I've just nominated a page I've been working on: Tina Strobos. Should I add this to your tracking list? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Of course you can add to the list! I haven't been very active on Wikipedia (for a mix of reasons, some related to Wikipedia and some related to real life) and it's unlikely to meet any goal. I am happy to see you're working on articles! Knope7 (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome. ;-) I'll see what I can do. I know this isn't really an active group at the moment (everyone has busy lives!), but I appreciate your attempts to set some goals for Women in Green. Maybe we'll be able to get things moving in time. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Carmen Casco de Lara Castro has been hanging since 14 Sep 2017 without a review, though Marjorie Schick which was nominated in February 2018 was approved that same month. I am working on another, i.e. Mary Hayley. We shall see if the problem with getting Casco reviewed is that she is Latina if Hayley is reviewed before her. SusunW (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up on this, Mary Hayley is now approved. Casco is still not reviewed, but at least a reviewer is working on it. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Passed 1000 Mark! New goals?
Hi all -- pinging some editors who might be interested:

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

I think it would be worth revisiting goals again. Does anyone have thoughts on what we should do next? Knope7 had suggested aiming to nominate at least 25 new GA articles in 2018, and I know a number of editors are working on that. I'm wondering if it would be possible to make this a more structured WikiProject, possibly with its own list of members? It might be easier to collaborate on GA articles about women (and encourage others to contribute) if it's a more formally organized project. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening up this discussion. I think a members list might give us an idea of editors who are interested in collaboration. The biggest hurdle at this point, IMO, is getting articles reviewed. If we could figure out a way to facilitate that, it would be huge. I finally found someone to review Casco, but literally, I went around asking editors. Finally found someone who appreciated humor (I told him she'd waited a full term pregnancy). I wonder if we could reform the way that reviews happen, at least for articles on women. Placing the burden on one person for a review seems taxing for a volunteer program. In the real world, writers write, fact checkers verify information, editors check copy, proofreaders check grammar and punctuation, and reviewers evaluate. Is there a way that we can work together to review articles? Are there people who are interested specifically in reviewing?, writing?, fact checking/sourcing? etc. I guess what I am saying is just a list of members isn't sufficient. How do we identify those people who have skills which might best assist moving an article along in the process?
 * Thanks for starting this discussion, . It's an interesting idea. A potential drawback I see is whether it becomes a conflict for editors to rewiew each other's articles. It would probably be fine so long as project members are ok failing each other's articles if necessary. I am also slightly concerned that someone might decide to hassle members anytime we reveiw articles about women. I'm not against the idea of a members list and I would sign up. I think we should prepare for possible pushback.
 * More generally, one of the reasons I have been less active here is that I'm becoming frustrated with the Good Article process. I can name a few editors who are very particular with their reviews while other articles read the article and pass it if the article is reasonable and has several citations (doesn't matter if they are accurate, just that they are there). The gap in what is expected is enormous and you never know what is going to be exected until an editor picks your article to review. At some point, the GA distinction becomes meaningless. Knope7 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly the reason for my proposal that we "reinvent the wheel" so to speak, . Those drive-by reviews help no one and don't improve the encyclopedia. If we had members sign up for various parts of creating and reviewing, we could then post articles ready for various stages and move them along the process. In that way, by the time it was nominated for the final review, the risk of failure would be minimal. SusunW (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of project members working together to improve articles. It seems to me like maybe we would be setting our sights too low in nominating for GA when FA might become more appropriate. Risk of failure would be low, but we would have also exceeded what is needed to pass GA review by miles. Articles are currently being passed with entire paragraphs uncited, headings that do not match the content, talk page issues unresolved, etc. Either the editors over at GA need to start enforcing their own standards or we need to look elsewhere demonstrate quality. Knope7 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * and : I definitely agree that editors working together to prepare or review articles for higher standards (either GA or FA status) would be a good route to go down. The main issue for GA (other than inconsistent reviewers) seems to be the perpetual backlog at the GA-review department -- it doesn't matter how many nominations we create (or how much we collaborate in preparation) if they end up sitting there for six months or more before review. I'm not sure how we could help solve that, except by reviewing GA nominations ourselves. They want a single editor to be in charge of opening and closing a GA review, but they do suggest additional editors can add comments to reviews, so that could be one method for collaborating on the various aspects of GA reviews (one person checks facts, another comments on prose, another comments on images, etc). Looking at the criteria now, however, I'm wondering: what's the real difference between achieving GA and FA status, besides the different (and more collaborative) reviewing process? The criteria looks relatively similar, and the FA department has much less of a backlog. If we put our GA goals on the back burner and started working together to prepare articles for FA reviews instead, maybe that would be a more productive approach to future goals? Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have zero clue how to do a FA. Am barely at the place where I am comfortable with GA, but I admit my standards are pretty high for submitting an article. From things I have read on FA, they want book citations, which are not always possible for women, though much easier to find on historic women (my favorites) than contemporary women. It also requires peer review. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to help collaborate on these. I often struggle to write something with the detail and length required for GA without losing steam (and often, not getting the energy to try it in the first place), but very happy to help others if it's an area I know anything about. (I really wish there were people interested in things Oceania way; I've got a fairly solid personal library and I'm happy to spend a day in the State Library for this kind of thing but not so useful on European or US topics.) I'm also very happy to do GA reviews wherever necessary, so having somewhere prominent to note GAN would be useful. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never done a FA, but from what I've seen it's a pickier version of GA., I've noticed your articles tend to be very thorough and carefully cited. I think your high standards would be a fit for FA if you ever decide to go that route. , I recently saw a four paragraph article passed at GA (it was technically a biography). That's part of what made me reach the conclusion that the GA standards have lost a lot of meaning. I'm not all that useful on Oceania topics, although I would be interested in giving it a try. My GA articles are mostly U.S. Cabinet Secretaries and 1 U.S. Supreme Court justice. I'd be happy to try and collaborate on an Oceania equivalent. , the long wait is one reason I suggested using nominations as a goal as those are are entirely within our control. I think reviewing nominees can help to get one's own article reviewed. My thinking on this project has been that the more active it becomes, the more people will find it and participate. You starting this discussion was a great step towards making this place more active. Kudos on that. I'm kind of ambivalent as to what the next step should be. I'll try to contribute to whatever the group decides. Knope7 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks first of all for all your efforts and for reaching the one thousand mark on Women in Green GAs. I would certainly be prepared to cooperate on improving articles on women with a view to reaching GA or FA. Rather than just trying to reduce the backlog in the GA queue, I think it would be useful if we could create a set of articles on which we would like to collaborate, whether or not they have already been nominated for GA. We could start by creating a list of the women's biographies currently nominated for GA and perhaps provide an assessment of what still needs to be done on each one before it is really ready for an "official" GA review. We could then try to pick out two or three articles from the Hot 100 list which we are interested in improving in collaboration with others. Others interested could add their names. In this way, we might come up with a manageable list of 10 to 20 articles on which we could work together. At the same time, if any of the participants have written or identified other articles they would like to improve up to GA standard or beyond, they could also be added as Hotlist candidates. I think this would intensify interest in the general improvement of women's biographies, rather than just on GA reviews. Those of us involved in Women in Red, frequently come across new well drafted B-class articles which, with a little more attention, could easily make it to GA. Anyone interested in this line of approach?--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * yes, I have also had reviews where the file was passed without any questions, which seems bizarre. Every article can be improved somehow so that always feels to me that they didn't actually review it. I was told on my first good article that it had to be a minimum of 10,000 characters or 20,000 bytes to submit; that it had to have photos (sigh, my hardest thing besides technology); that harv style references were preferred; and that the lede must be an uncited summary of the cited material in the body. I see lots of files submitted that don't meet those standards, but it is what I shoot for.
 * We have 5 articles on the Women's Liberation Movement that we'd like to nominate. (A main summary and then 4 continental articles). We started it because it was nominated for deletion and poorly written. Since it is in effect the 50th anniversary of the movement, it would be cool to have them reviewed this year. Still tweaking them and have not yet nominated them, but if you are game to review, let me know. Pick anyone in Oceania and I'll be glad to collaborate. My only issues are finding sources there.
 * Karen Blixen and Alice Paul would be 2 I'd be interested in working on. SusunW (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the sound of it, . It looks like there are at least a couple of initial actions we could take, based off of discussion so far: (1) creating a basic members list, to establish who's interested in collaborating and attracting more collaborators, and (2) creating a more prominent 'GA Nominations' section, possibly on the main page, where we can track/assess/help improve current GA-nominated articles about women. : we could add a more visible link to your GA Goals Tracking page there too. How does that sound to everyone? Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * absolutely! sounds great! The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me Alanna the Brave. I'm in. If we are going to designate what areas we are interested in, mine would be research and writing. (Along with research, of course is fact checking). SusunW (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. I'll try to put something together over the next few days. Glad to see Karen Blixen is a candidate.--Ipigott (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I like Alanna the Brave's plan. I also think we should consider adding a quick disclaimer that all project members are encouraged (or agree) to follow the rules for nominating and reviewing Good Articles and will not promote articles without a good faith belief that they meet the criteria. Just to make our intentions clear that we are not looking for special treatment or promoting articles in bad faith. Knope7 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, -- I definitely think that's worth considering as the project develops further. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As promised, I have begun a proposal on Women in Green collaboration. I hope you and other active members of the project will collaborate by adding to the lists and signing. When the list is a bit more mature, I'll move it to Women in Green and publicize it more widely.--Ipigott (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I've just added to your list & signed! Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It'd be really useful with some of these if we could share pointers to any digitised resources (e.g. via Wikipedia Library Card) - I was so keen to work on Sirimavo Bandaranaike until I realised none of the biographies of her exist in any library in my state. I have a feeling this is going to be a bit of a problem for a few of these. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This, though I am not sure you can access it, seems fairly thorough on her policies and archive.org has quite a few options to sort through . Haven't started trying to pull any yet, but you might want to comb through them. SusunW (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Members List
,, and  -- I've just created a 'Members' section on the Women in Green homepage to current list active participants (structure borrowed from the WP Women list). Does that look all right? :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea to start a participants list. I suggest you post something along these lines on the talk pages of WikiProject Women in Red as well as WikiProject Women and its affiliates, explaining that active collaboration could help to bring about major improvements to women's biographies and articles on women's works.--Ipigott (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now there's an idea -- I'm on it! Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom during World War I?
Is there a reason this is listed as one of the "Good Articles about women"? It doesn't seem to focus on women; certainly mentions women, but in no more than a small fraction of the article. --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * remove it if you think that it doesn't belong. SusunW (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Vera Gedroitz
I have expanded this from a stub and think that it could easily be ready for GA. I read, but did not translate anything from either the Russian or French articles because both seem to be based primarily upon the book by Vladimir Georgievich Khokhlov to which I have no access. Other than the name of her first partner, I believe I was able to locate sufficient sources to substantiate most of the information contained therein. IMO, the article needs a copyedit, someone to review images and add whatever might be appropriate, and finally establishment of what her surname should be. Detailed English sources by Bennett, Rappaport and Wilson call her Gedroits, whereas those who mention her in passing—Abade, Pruitt, Whelan, use Gedroitz. I am not a linguist, thus am unsure. I also did not include detailed information on her surgical procedures, which can be found in Blokhina. If anyone thinks those are necessary for the article, they can certainly be added. In light of WiR's editathon's this month being on both Russia and LGBT, I would like to complete the nomination this month. Any help would be greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Made some copy edits. May do more tomorrow. If there are any you disagree with (especially my clearly irrational preference for the occasional subject-verb-object sentence, without preceding adverbial phrase!), feel free to revert, at worst we'll discuss on the talk page. It's a great piece of work. --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. This one was a lot of translation, so I noticed that I went back and forth between verb tenses, which drives me insane. After a while, I cannot even see my own mistakes and it's easier to just ask for help ;) There are tons of photos in commons, but I can never figure out which ones to use. SusunW (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a few additional copy-edits throughout. Looks good! I also have a quick question: in the 'Schooling abroad' section, you write "He advised that her sister "Sasha" had died from tuberculosis" -- but who was Sasha? I assume that's a nickname for one of her sisters, but you don't say which one. I can take a look at photos tomorrow -- you're right that the Commons has plenty of material, and I think incorporating at least one or two more photos would help complete the article. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you I have no idea on Sasha, the source didn't say. Am hoping that  the linguist and polyglot of WiR will have some insight on that and the whole what to name the article question. Feel free to input any images you like. SusunW (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Alexandra. Sasha is short for Alexandra or Alexander. Likely your source thought this self evident, the way that Bob is short for Robert or Meg for Margaret. (Which are also not obvious to non native speakers, of course.) --GRuban (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I changed it to show that Sasha and Alexandra were the same. SusunW (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


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


 * While the article is already very detailed, it might be useful to draw further on the French version which has already achieved GA status. It contains a number of additional well referenced details and many pertinent illustrations. I find it very surprising, by the way, that none of G's works has been translated.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree on the name, as the weight of the English sources gives Gedroits, I just wasn't sure linguistically. You have confirmed my gut instinct, so I think we move it and change the name throughout the article. I found it very interesting that all the present English sources indicate her work was lost to the west, but the 1915 wound book in English, clearly indicated her work was known in the west. If you think we can pull in things from the French article, please do. You know it is my worst language, but I got the impression it was a translation of the Russian article. As I have no access to the biography on which it was based, there is no way to confirm the information. Maybe you can find an accessible copy or we can AGF that the material is as presented and just add a translation flag to the talk page. SusunW (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be right about the French article being a translation of the Russian - which is also a GA. They are almost identical. I can of course read the French much more easily. I'll go through the French and pick out any important details which seem worthwhile. Such items can frequently be found in other reliable sources. Let's see.--Ipigott (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That would be fabulous. I moved the article and think I got the name changed throughout. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know if there is a bot we can run that will put the citations in correct numeric order within the text or is that a manual process? I must say, this is really lovely to have so many helping hands :) SusunW (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know of any bot for this. I've now finished adding my bits and pieces. In general, the English article is even more detailed than the Russian or French. Although there are reports that some of her works were published in French, German or Swedish, I have not been able to find any traces. There are also reports that her university thesis was published in French. Can anyone help to find it?--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I really tried to find enough information to make up for the lack of access to that biography and was thrilled that I found medical analysis in both English and Russian, showing the import of her work. I found one source on archive.org in German, but it was little gossipy snippets, not a translation of any of her works. I guess I will start paragraph by paragraph sorting the refs in order. SusunW (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the widely cited achievements of Gedroits was her development of laparotomy. The term does not appear in the article. Can this be rectified? See, , , .--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that there is in fact one instance of laparotomies - but her achievements here should probably be emphasized.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently prevailing wisdom at the time was to leave the patient in a semi-reclining position and allow them to seep (I had images in my head of poor patients bleeding out). I added a bit more detail about it, if you think it needs more, please feel free to add. I think I renumbered everything, ugh totally dizzying all that up down refresh, but I may have missed something. Of course, if we add other info, will have to be checked again, but that is the nature of the beast :) SusunW (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your additional efforts. I just wonder whether "Gedroits was one of the first to perform laparotomies on military patients." is sufficiently strong. It really looks as if she was more than just "one of the first" to be recognized for adopting laparotomy in the field. Do you think we could say something like "Gedroits is remembered as a pioneer in applying laparotomy for the treatment of abdominal wounds on the battle front."?--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * absolutely. I think there is definitely evidence of that. SusunW (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are done, except for picking out images and then making any final adjustments to the text, etc. Thank you all for the help. Looks pretty amazing and such an improvement from the stub we started with. SusunW (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi -- did you see the audio clip on the Commons of Gedroits' name being pronounced?  Is that something you might like to use? I think it's been used in other language versions of the article. I'll finish up with images later today. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never used a pronunciation audio, but it's kind of cool. I wondered about that little speaker on her article, because when I first started I tried to push it and nothing happened. Can you fix it so that you hear the audio on her article? (I am sorry, I truly am technically inept with WP.) SusunW (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It took some technological wrestling, but I think I've figured out how to add the audio. It works! Yay! :-D Just looking through pictures now... Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm all finished with images. I think the only thing left to do is for someone to take one last sweep for typos, unnecessary commas, et cetera (it might be a good idea to take a break for a day or two before doing this). Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are probably done. I did a few more alt-name redirects, tweaked the text. I think the images look great, so, I'm going to nominate it in Biology and medicine. Question is do we know someone, preferably who can review the Russian sourcing, who can review it? Of course, it can just sit there and wait, but the language will probably hold it up and I would like to have her featured on DYK in pride month. SusunW (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Browsing through the GA Nominations page, and reviewer User:Kaiser matias appears to speak intermediate Russian. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And we passed! have any brilliant ideas for a hook for DYK? I have done the QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Celia Brackenridge, but we need a hook and a nomination. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So many choices, so tempting to throw them all in at once. Did you know "...that Vera Gedroits was the first Russian female military surgeon, a princess, a good author, a bad poet, a lesbian, married a man, introduced new ways to perform abdominal surgery, and trained the Tsarina and her daughters as nurses?" The mind boggles. --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I totally love that :)! SusunW (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is 200 (if you count ... and ?) characters, the maximum allowed ...that Princess Vera Gedroits—good author, but bad poet; lesbian but married a man; doctor but taught nursing to royals—was the 1st Russian female military surgeon & pioneered battlefield laparotomy? Too much? SusunW (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well done, Susun. How about simplifying as: "... that Princess Vera Gedroits pioneered abdominal surgery in a medical train on the Russo-Japanese front?"--Ipigott (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I will do them both and we'll see what happens. :) did you see that our Carmen Casco de Lara Castro was finally cleared as GA as well? Busy month. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done Template:Did you know nominations/Vera Gedroits. Again, I just want to reiterate how much fun this collaboration has been. I truly enjoyed working on her as a team. SusunW (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed helping out! I think this went really well. Looking forward to more collaboration in the future. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm glad took so much time and trouble in reviewing Vera Gedroits. The article has certainly benefited from the adjustments made. I'm glad  participated so actively too. The one thing that doesn't seem to have been sorted out was the cause of Sergei's death. In the Maire article, we learn of "la mort accidentelle de son frère préféré, Serguéï". So it certainly looks as if he died in an accident rather than from illness. As the article has progressed so well, it may really be worthwhile having another go at improving the prose and going for FA. Anyone interested?--Ipigott (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the FA process, but I'm willing to learn. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never done such a thing and have no idea how we do that. I'm game, but someone else will have to take the lead to do it and guide us through the process. I think we will have to somehow secure that biography on her, which is an impossibility for me here in Mexico. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you have done a FA Ian, if you want to guide us through the process, the rest of us can learn while we go. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Michaelina Wautier
I see that this celebrated Baroque painter is currently in the limelight as a result of the retrospectives now being held in Antwerp. Unfortunately the English Wikipedia article about her is very scanty while the Dutch one is far better developed. Would anyone be interested in contributing to improvements? Maybe could also lend a helping hand. Also known as "Michaelina Woutiers". There's some interesting background on her here. I'll see what I can contribute myself over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I had no idea! I hope they can find the other two evangelist paintings. Her article looks pretty good now to me, especially considering she was still lost in 1905 when the Women Painters of the World assigned her self-portrait to someone else. For a truly scanty article, try breaking your head on this colleague of hers: Madonna Fitta de Milano. Jane (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I created a Wikidata list for her paintings. Not all of them are article worthy (would have to have access to the catalog for that) but a few are very well documented (such as the ones in Vienna, the one recently auctioned, and the one in Seatte). User:Jane023/Paintings by Michaelina Wautier is what I made today and there are still a few more to do. Having read the whole Seattle blog I think a few more can be reattributed that are currently attributed to Jacob van Oost. Jane (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for preparing this useful list so quickly and for improving Commons coverage. I suggest you move the list to mainspace as soon as possible so that we can provide a link from the biography and perhaps start working on articles about some of her paintings.--Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Linked from her article. Jane (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And the art historian has a page now too ;) Jane (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

This how I feel about Tarbell after spending the last few weeks on her. Every day I've learned something interesting about her. Jaldous1 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , love the quote (except the gendered connotation). It's how I feel about every biography I work on. I learn far more about the subject and it is a bit like exploration, making discoveries as you go. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

July collaboration?
I was, however, perusing our list of proposed collaborations with an eye to next month's topic on WiR of Women in stage and screen. The two on that list which meet the criteria are Josephine Baker and Margot Fonteyn. Baker's talk page leads me to believe that it would be contentious to work on her, but I'd be game for Fonteyn, if anyone is interested. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Margot Fonteyn certainly deserves far better coverage than she has at the moment. We first need to hit GA, then perhaps FA later. FA isn't as bad as all that. The main problem is making sure all the images are OK. There are plenty of people who could help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I found tons of references for her in archive.org. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither are in my realm of expertise, but I would be happy to support with some clean-up. Knope7 (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to pitch in again. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yay! This looks like it'll be good. I perused what is there yesterday. Basically there is very little sourcing on it. Most of what was there was sourced to her autobiography, which per WP is not independent and unreliable as a source. There are tons of references here and one is the "definitive biography" by Meredith Daneman. If you don't have an account for archive.org, it is free and will allow you to check out things for 14 days. I found her Oxford bio yesterday and figured I could work that in to give an outline, that we can enhance with other sources. SusunW (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather busy these days but I'll pitch in when I have time.--Ipigott (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - I could help with some of the research/writing this time if you like, but I think I'd need to upgrade my Wiki-citation skills first. Most of the articles I've worked on in the past have used only the basic "reflist" template, without separate Bibliography & Citations sections, and I'm uncertain how to incorporate that kind of formatting/coding. Would you say it's fairly straightforward to pick up? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Really simple if you do it from the get-go, maddeningly frustrating to do it after there are tons of citations. ;) I find harv ref much simpler, as one doesn't have to read "around" the citations. I use the template to format the citations, just pull it down and fill in what I know. Then add |ref=harv or in the bibliography section. In the text, the format is  And yay! I think I have gotten it restructured and removed a bunch of cruft, but am still trying to find cites for some of the details. I am at the Nureyev years... SusunW (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You also might want to install harv-error gadget which will tell you in impossibly screaming red if you didn't link up the reference to the citation properly ;) SusunW (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm -- I'll check that out today! Thanks. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've worked it through her death. Still a bunch of things in it that either need citations or need to go. Still need to work the legacy portion to get rid of the bullet points, find citations, and get it to smooth prose. I barely looked at Monahan and Daneman (they are already in the bibliography, so you only need to cite the pages or  ), as I was trying to fill in the missing citations and primarily incorporate the Oxford biography, which is a subscription source. The others are freely accessible, as is this bio of Ashton, who was one of her principal choreographers. We may need a section that talks about her artistry and why she elevated to such heights, but I think I am not qualified to do that. Maybe you or  can assess that. SusunW (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fantastic work : I'll look at it more carefully tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , it's looking great. I'll read through the Daneman and Monahan sources this week and see if I can mine some more info from them. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for going through the Daneman book! The article is looking so much better than when we started ;) I have tried to find citations on all the missing info and I think we are down to 2 without reliable sources. If we cannot find documentation, those will need to go. anyone want to take a go at finding those citations, copyediting for smoother text, verifying the photos are properly licensed, or adding something on her artistry before we submit? SusunW (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we've done very well expanding the article (despite my somewhat uneven bursts of input!). :-) I haven't been able to find either of those two pieces of unsourced information in Daneman. Have you checked newspaper archives for the quote by Terry Wogan? Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, hathitrust, archive.org, jstor, EBSCO in a variety of searches. Everywhere the quotes come up, they appear to be mirrors of WP, not an actual reliable secondary source. I even checked the Times and Guardian archives at Gale. I'm out of ideas, unless someone searching in another google gets a different result. I know that searching from Mexico I get different results than people would in say the UK or Canada. SusunW (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you've scoured the Internet well -- I think you have more advanced search skills than me, and I've got no other suggestions, unfortunately. It's always frustrating when there's a piece of information that doesn't seem to have originated from anywhere (Mars, perhaps??). Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My guess is they heard it, maybe in a video, documentary or something? No idea. I did finally find the A to Z quote, though it was not "quoted" accurately. I find articles that state there is a Fonteyn Court at Parson's Field too, but none say that it is named after Dame Margot. It could just as easily be named after her brother, if we cannot find a source for it. The Wogan quote, I thought surely I'd find, but I totally come up with nothing. I've searched with Wogan, Fonteyn; Wogan, the Magic of Dance; Wogan review of Fonteyn, etc. Nada. SusunW (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * : I've been through the Margot Fonteyn article for copy editing. I'm really impressed with the amount of detail it now contains. The main remaining problem in American vs British English. As lots of the syntax and spellings are more American than English, I changed quite a few honours to honors, etc. I see however most of the dates are British. If you would prefer British English throughout, let me know and I'll make the changes. I see her OBE decoration is mentioned twice in the article. We still need a three-paragraph lead. Perhaps you can add a draft for me to tidy up, Susun? I'm sorry I have not been able to spend more time on this but I have been busy with lots of other things.--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . If you think we are pretty much done with the body, I can do a summary for the lede. Absolutely think it should be in British English, but that is impossible for me. With my student in York, I use spellcheck to fix it. Would that WP had such a feature ;) . SusunW (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll go through it for British English then. You can by the way created a version of Firefox for British spelling, etc., but that might complicate things for you.--Ipigott (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Very much it would complicate things, LOL. My poor student is Mexican, learned American English, so it is really hard for him. Even punctuation is different in British English. We just went through his PhD proposal reversing all the quotation marks, who knew that single marks are used for a quotation and double for a quote within a quote. Exactly the opposite of US. It is confusing ;) SusunW (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I have no idea what the difference in an "ordinary" commander and a "dame" commander is, but the notices from the Gazette, show they were awarded at different times, thus clearly different distinctions. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, lede is done. Anyone please feel free to modify it. So much information to summarize--uff. I also took out the two remaining uncited statements. They can always be added if a source surfaces. So, down to final copyediting and the photograph reviews, I think. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought that it might be nice to have photos with all of her partners and added one with Helpmann from commons. There is not one there with Somes, but I found this It was published in the US in 1957 and the magazine went defunct in 1964. Clearly falls within the "between 1923 and 1977" range, but what we need to know is if it was published with a copyright notice or if the magazine after it folded renewed any copyright it might have had. Anyone know how to research that? There is a copy of the magazine at The University of Texas 2 miles from, so I have asked her if she might be able to look on the inside cover to determine who the photographer was and if there is a copyright notice on the image. I don't know how we go about researching the magazine's rights. Anyone have ideas? SusunW (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can visit their library later or maybe get a librarian on the phone to look for me. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thanks :) SusunW (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And a question... I didn't even look at that section called "Main Stage Roles", which I just noticed. Do we need to cite it? I cannot imagine that an uncited list would be acceptable, but that is my academic take. I think there is a chronological list in for her early career.  any luck on the photo? SusunW (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to get a librarian to help me without going over there, but it wasn't productive. I think I'll have to stop by and visit which I can probably do next week. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if it is, I think it would be good to send them out today or tomorrow as I'm pretty sure many of our members would like to prepare for the Monthly Achievement Initiative. Once the invitations go out to our members, I also intend to contact other wikiprojects and individual editors who have participated in initiatives such as our challenges and the World Contest. Let me know if there is anything specific you need help with and I'll see what I can do. You might also like to communicate our August events to Signpost.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * She sent them, apparently there was some glitch. She posted a notice on Women in Red. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted on the Village Pump. I'm not sure if I should resend or not until it's figured out. I don't want to annoy people who did get the invite by spamming them. For example, I got it and so did a few others, but I have no idea what percentage received the invite or how to figure that out. Hopefully the advice at Village Pump will help. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently you used the wrong list. It's the kind of thing we all do from time to time, so don't worry about it. Just send it out to the full opt in list today and everything should be OK. There's still plenty of time for everyone to prepare for August.--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than have that uncited section of her performances, which did not seem to indicate why any of the roles were selected, I have drafted List of performances by Margot Fonteyn I managed to enter her first twenty years (thanks to Monahan). On Fonteyn's article, I took out anything which was not a premier/debut performance, though admittedly, at this point after 3 days I have only gotten to 1957. Meaning, I have yet to tackle any of her partnership with Nureyev. If anyone wants to help, feel free. We cannot use IMDB as a reliable source, though it clearly gives info which can be substantiated elsewhere, i.e. newspapers and performances listed in the article already after 1957 can just be transferred to the list. There is also this filmography of Ashton, which lists some of her work SusunW (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Useful list, nicely complementing the Fonteyn article. You're doing such a good job on it, Susun, that I think we should leave it in your hands for the time being.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you need an extra pair of hands, I can help, but you may need to clarify the criteria for me (I'm not overly familiar with the dance world). What counts as a premiere/debut performance? Is it the first time a specific ballet company puts on a specific show? Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!! I had no idea it would be over 500 performances when I started. Uffff! I'll finish the dance part, have a system working. If you could work on the film and TV that would help a lot. (FYI, a debut can be either the first time a performer did a role, the first time the company did it, or the first time the piece was ever performed) SusunW (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And are freaking awesome! Sue took the photos of the title page and cover. With that information We hope was able to confirm that the photographer never copyrighted the image and the magazine failed to renew their copyright!!!! It takes a village. SusunW (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm finished (or as finished as I am going to be) with the dance stuff in the performance list. I added more info to the bio (Grace Kelly/Prince Rainier wedding, LBJ inauguration) etc. and the premiers, so someone should probably proof the article one more time. I did a lot of work on the photos and I think they all pass muster. If either of you can proof it one more time and Alanna if you want to input the TV/film stuff on the list, I think we're pretty much done. If the list doesn't get finished, I guess it doesn't matter, as it won't be in the nominated article, but I've worked on it solidly for 5 days and am exhausted by the effort ;) SusunW (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've been preoccupied today and yesterday with a separate GA project (Frances Gertrude McGill is currently being reviewed), but I'll aim to put some final work into Margot Fonteyn and the list of her performances over the weekend. What would you say to submitting the GA nomination on Monday? Give yourself a rest for now (and a pat on the back!). :-P Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A lot of performances. Glad you got McGill worked up and under review. :) Also one more TV reference . I think if we can give it a final once-over, Monday is good. SusunW (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty busy today but I'll try to find time to go through it again tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no worries. I'll be out this afternoon too. Real world function to attend. SusunW (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks to me as if it's ready for a GA review. Well done, both of you.--Ipigott (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proofing it Ian. Will leave it for a day and nominate it tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nomination is in. Hopefully someone will pick it up for review fairly soon. SusunW (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Woah - a reviewer has snatched it up already. That was fast! Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Woot! We'll just need to keep an eye on it and answer the questions. :) SusunW (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * you may need to step into the review. I am being asked for things I know nothing about: templates for British English? Peers in the ballet world? I am confused by the review at this point, as it has focused on things like layout and style which don't seem to be part of GA criteria. I am used to questions asking for clarifications of data, or minor editing, corrections, or source explanations, but this is quite different. Maybe it has to do with the fact that she is famous and I usually only focus on people who are merely notable? SusunW (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think I know where to find the "British English" template mentioned by the reviewer -- I'll add it to the Talk page now. I don't know what to say about the "peers" question or the section headings though. Some of the requests made by the reviewer do appear to be a matter of personal preference. If necessary, I think it would be reasonable to request a second opinion from another GA reviewer. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks! We'll play it by ear for now, just don't be surprised if I ping you again. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yay it passed. Anyone want to tackle the DYK nomination? SusunW (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! I'm really sorry, Susun, that I did not have time to help this along yesterday evening but I was not at home. In any case, you seem to have been able to take care of most of the changes yourself. Now that you have carried out quite a bit of research on him, may I suggest you put together a short biography of Felix, with a blue link from the MF article. As for the long dashes (i.e. em dashes), when they are used in running text, they should not be separated from the surrounding words by spaces. See here. Dashes are generally preferred to hyphens for punctuating running text. I agree with you that some of the queries in the review were rather unusual but I have a feeling the reviewer, a relatively recent editor, was finding his own depth. I was nevertheless pleased to see he was taking a genuine interest in the article. It's always good to have new reviewers as the long backlog can be discouraging. I think I'll add a word of appreciation on his talk page. Alanna seems pretty good at DYK hooks. Perhaps she can come up with one for Margot. And now that this one has made the mark, have either of you earmarked anything for August?--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll do some pondering today and come up with a few DYK hook suggestions. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on the DYK Alanna. Not to worry Ian. I felt I was out of my depth with it, sort of like the first GA I ever did. For August, see below, as Women in Red's topic is indigenous women, I'm working on Wilma Mankiller. Another article that was in dismal shape and in serious need of attention. SusunW (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alrighty —, below are a couple of DYK hooks we could go with. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) "Did you know that English ballerina Margot Fonteyn danced with the Royal Ballet for 44 years, was appointed prima ballerina assoluta by Queen Elizabeth II, and then became a cattle rancher in Panama?"
 * 2) "Did you know that English prima ballerina Margot Fonteyn was performing in the Netherlands when the Nazis invaded in May 1940, forcing her to flee the country with nothing more than the costume she was wearing?"
 * Thanks, I'll try to get a review done ASAP and get it nominated. SusunW (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay done Template:Did you know nominations/Margot Fonteyn SusunW (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

New userbox
I created a userbox for this project, modeled after the one from Women in Red. You can add it using, which looks like: The template can be found under Template:User WikiProject Women in Green. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That looks very good. Why not post it on the main Women in Green page? We could then alert all the participants.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Very nice, . Thanks for taking the initiative! That should definitely go on the main page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Love this! SusunW (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Proud to put this on my user page. Thank you! --Auldhouse (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I need to actually put forward a few more women-oriented GAs first before I can justify using this box on my page. But it's nice to see it available. If you've got a "This user misses " userbox, I'll have that, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

New GA nominations section?
Hey everyone: a little while back, we discussed the idea of adding a more prominent 'GA nominations' section to the Women in Green main page, where we could track currently nominated articles about women and women's works (regardless of whether or not those articles were nominated by WiG project members). Do you still like this idea? I think it would make it easier for us to keep our list of successful GA articles up to date, and it might also encourage some new editors to start reviewing GA articles (we could provide links to the GA review instructions, the GA help desk, etc.). I've created a drafted 'GA nominations' section, just to provide an example of what it might look like. As per 's earlier suggestion, I added a brief disclaimer, and I also included a link to Knope7's 2018 Goal Tracking list. What do you think? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it. I'm all for anything that makes it easier. I often forget to add things to lists, and it would be lovely if we could figure out a way to have it automated. On Women in Red, there is an article alert that tells you about project articles which have been nominated. Wonder if there is a way to modify that alert? We have to be careful that we don't indicate that anyone's work is part of the project if they didn't indicate that. But, simply adding anyones' work to a list saying you could help by reviewing surely would be appreciated? I know I would appreciate it. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm! I like the idea of automating the list, although I'm not sure how we would do that. Pinging other project members to join the conversation:, , , , , , , , , , .    Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes please! The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think is the one who did the alerts for Women in Red. Perhaps they can help. SusunW (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great concept, and the examples are easy to read. I agree that it's important to show whether pages are part of the project, as it might not fit with the motivations of other editors? Thank you for thinking of this! SunnyBoi (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's do it! Noto-Ichinose
 * I'm all for the idea. MWright96 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I've added a couple of sentences to clarify that not all articles were edited and/or nominated by members of Women in Green. At a certain point, I think it might be worth creating a Women in Green project tag to put on article talk pages. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea. Also, I just happened to be looking for a WiG project tag to put on the talk page of the article I was working on - so good timing, would love to see that made! LovelyLillith (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have had a go at adding a subscription to the article alerts bot, which can then be added to the project page here. If and when it runs successfully, I'll put it on the main project page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! I'll be very interested to see the result. Does it track WP Women articles specifically? Something we might have to consider is the fact that some GA nominated articles about women are not yet tagged with WP Women (or any affiliated projects, e.g. WP Women Artists). Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've defined it as anything tagged in WikiProject Women in one form or another. I think it ought to be possible to expand it to include other projects or tags, but I'll see if the basics work when the bot runs tomorrow morning. On a related note, I added Haim (band) to the list of GAs, it's not a biography of a woman per se but an article about a group of three sisters. What do we do with groups of women? Depending on which source you read, The Unthanks could have a strong claim to belong here (if somebody improved the article to GA); though the group is mixed gender, the members that get the most coverage in sources are the two sisters. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I think works by women, groups of women, things women created or operated are all included, just like at Women in Red. I'd also be in favor of including non-binary people as the point is to improve coverage on those gendered groups who are typically ignored by the encyclopedia. SusunW (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, the list is now up. A few niggles need to be ironed out in the long-term, but it should be good enough for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome. That list is definitely missing a few nominations, but I'm up for trying it out. I've added the text from my original draft, just as an explanation/disclaimer. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a fantastic addition. --Auldhouse (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hellknowz has fixed the configuration for the alert bot; in the meantime I have now put Karen Carpenter up for a GA nomination so I would expect the page to update some time in the next 24 hours or thereabouts. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! I wondered when you would do Carpenter, after I found you that book :) Like I think weare missing some, i.e. my nom on 24 July of Eusebia Cosme is missing. Any idea why? SusunW (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I do - it doesn't have on the talk page, though it does have . I've asked about this on the parallel thread here. And thank you for pointing me towards that Randy Schmidt biography, it was an excellent (if ultimately rather sad and poignant) read. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Woot! thanks again, typically, project tagging goes if it is for a woman born before 1950, Women's History and if born after 1950, Women, so yes, it really does need to include both. Glad you were able to use the book. I love that archive.org book lending thingy. SusunW (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

, Right, I think I've fixed the alert bot subscription so it will do both WikiProject Women and WikiProject Women's History articles together. It should update by around 10:00UTC tomorrow morning; when it does, could you check that your GA nominations are now visible? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So now my $10,000 question. If these two are the primary categories, and if because the current logic is not to overtag, do we think this will catch all the noms in the sister projects, i.e. Women in Sport, Women Writers, Women Scientists, etc. or do each of those need to be added? SusunW (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so; however, the first two examples I randomly looked at, Talk:Agatha Christie and Talk:J. K. Rowling, both included WikiProject Women Writers and WikiProject Women on the talk page, so that would suggest not. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please fix the templates so the features requested here work? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it's coming together! I think it may be important to catch those sister projects (e.g. Women in Sport), if only because I've encountered certain editors who have very strong opinions about overtagging -- they may tag their GA nomination about a female tennis player with WikiProject Women in Sport, but refuse to additionally label it with WikiProject Women or Women in History. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do admit that when people argue about whether an article should go in project / category 'x' or project / category 'y', my eyes glaze over and I wonder if there's some grass nearby I can watch grow instead as a more pleasurable activity. But that's just me, I guess. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just you, . :-) I suppose catagorisation is something all encyclopedic projects have to figure out how to deal with though, especially one as huge as Wikipedia. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's primarily why I brought it up. I love your description, Ritchie333, captures my reaction as well ;) SusunW (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins
I have long toyed with the idea of taking this article to GA status, primarily as an exercise for writing with a neutral point of view. I despise Katie Hopkins and everything she stands for, but that doesn't mean she can't have a well-written biography that takes no sides. The principal problem is the article has never been particularly stable, and many editors have been involved with it; since she's been sacked from LBC, the source coverage has died down a bit and perhaps it's time to revisit it. However, I believe the article is reasonably well-written and sourced, although I haven't checked every single citation. Does anyone else think this is a worthwhile exercise? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I rarely work on living people and it probably would not have occurred to me to work on a living person for GA. Seems like one would be putting in a lot of work on an article that was subject to lots of changes. But, heck, what do I know ;) SusunW (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also can't help thinking that, while this project is nominally about improving any articles relating to women, having a leading example of a person documented in multiple reliable sources as being a racist troll is probably not a good advertisement for it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True dat. While I do think there is merit in presenting the wide diversity that is part of this world, I do get to pick and choose what my level of involvement will be. I choose to participate mainly on people who were builders of community and spaces for inclusion. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


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