Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Archive 2

Wilma Mankiller
Women in Red's topic for August is indigenous women. Looking at Mankiller's article, it is definitely in need of serious improvement. That being said, while I have found a lot of information on her, I think it is critical to discuss her politics. There was a book written Beloved Women: The political lives of Ladonna Harris and Wilma Mankiller but there does not appear to be an e-book available. I went on Amazon to order the book, but it will cost me more than the price of the book to ship it to Mexico AND I cannot expect delivery until October 3rd. Is there anyone who would be willing to collaborate on Mankiller's biography and who would have access to the book at a local library? SusunW (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I checked my local library systems, but no sign of this book, unfortunately. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying . Got a note from she found a copy in the next state, but it's only about 30 minutes from her. She's going to try to get it. One of those books I'd love to actually own. Harris' bio needs work too. SusunW (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to be at the NM University in Cruces. I also have a standing invitation to come visit a friend at the Public library in Cruces and so I really need to go. This just gives me the kick in the pants to do it. I can go sometime after the 12th of August. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's perfect. I am working on the bio part now, as I said, it was a mess, but mid-month still gives us plenty of time to finish the bio. Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, ! It gives me an excuse to take a mini trip. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are doing a wonderful job on this, . Let me know when you need me to go through it for copy editing.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . This is actually one I know something about! My degrees were in women's and Native American history and I grew up a hairs-breadth away from Tahlequah. Slow going, but I want to get it balanced. Now I am torn as to whether I should work on the controversy article, as it is clearly misstating facts and sources, but I do not want to become involved in an edit war. SusunW (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing at a time. Anything to do with controversy looks dangerous.--Ipigott (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more! SusunW (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have made it through all the sources I have. Still need the book Sue is getting on policy, so there may be changes, but if you want to start with the copyedit, feel free. I KNOW there have to be more photos of her. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, so *surely* there are government photos which can be used. I also haven't done the lede, as will be evident. I need to take a break from her for a day or so, to cogitate the summary. SusunW (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * .: There something missing from the sentence "In 1956, when she was eleven..."--Ipigott (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * fixed it, but it could probably be worded more clearly. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been through it all but there was very little needing attention. You have certainly included an enormous amount of detail and quite a bit of additional background. I rather like the way you have combined her life story with the background and the awards she received. Others might prefer to see these in separate sections but I wouldn't make any major changes at this stage. Great work, once again. Now we just need the lead. But take your time. While I'm here, any interest in Audrey Hepburn?--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there were just so many awards they would take up far too much space in a list. ;) I also struggled a bit about the controversies, finally opting to put the Freedmen issue in a note, as she simply implemented policy that was passed before her terms; but felt that I had to address the situation with her successor in the body. Not sure about Hepburn, in general, I know very little about television or film, or popular culture in general. I am far more interested in people who impacted the actual lives and living conditions of others. I haven't really thought beyond September, when I was thinking that for lawyers to tackle either Clara González or Ángela Acuña Braun, depending on whether sources can be found. Let me give it some thought. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, they sound really interesting if accessible sources can be found and I'd love to help. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That'd be cool ! I've written the lede, probably POVish, as I adored this woman! A major storm has just blown in, our power is off, and I am operating on emergency battery, so am probably done for the day. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And finally I have power again. Whew! SusunW (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As you created Ángela Acuña Braun, you would probably like to take it to GA. I would be happy to help out with any Spanish-language sources which seem important. And of course anything else you need help with. I'm fascinated by her diploma in "aviculture". Why this course of study? Did she ever take it any further?--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * no idea on aviculture, except maybe its a cheap source of food and widely used in the area? Funny, I was leaning toward González for the reason that I would learn more doing her ;) Still both are in Central America, where typically there are not many sources, so sourcing will be the dictator, I'm thinking. SusunW (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As is typical, I am worthless with images. I did have help in finding the Presidential Medal of Freedom photo :) but am unsure of what else to put. Since she came to prominence after 1977, very few images of her are in the PD. I added a map for the Cherokee Nation territory, as I think that helps with geographical location and a photo of Alcatraz and the Cherokee Heritage Center. Other than that, I am at a loss for ideas. Perhaps, y'all have ideas for photographs on Mankiller? SusunW (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No great photo ideas yet, I'm afraid, but I'll let you know if I stumble across anything interesting that might work. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * -- if you're still looking for images, I meandered through the Commons again today and thought of some possibilities: how about one of these pictures of the Arkansas River in Colorado (because of the Cherokee Nation's claim to government compensation over the river), or San Francisco during the 1950s ? Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the Colorado side is way far away, but it occurs to me that I can probably use photos from the McClellan-Kerr project. Thank you! SusunW (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible request for assistance.
I use ORES to tell if my article is ok and at what approximate standard. Because I put a couple of articles through DYK some have relatively good standards now. I have 3 that ORES thinks should be GA and one it places at B. I was wondering what I need to do to improve these to the point of submitting them to see if they actually ARE GA (and if the B could be brought to GA). BTW they are actually all assessed as Start class or C right now. They are:
 * Margaret Dobbs
 * Emily Winifred Dickson
 * Louise Gavan Duffy

and Nancy Wynne-Jones. Can someone advise on my next steps? Is anyone here interested in taking on me/them?  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 10:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Louise Gavan Duffy is your best bet for GA. Have a chat with, who I believe has accumulated quite a few early 20th century suffragette sources (see Black Friday (1910)). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * -- I agree with Ritchie333 that Louise Gavan Duffy would be one of the best candidates for GA, although I think Emily Winifred Dickson is getting close as well. The other two articles are a bit short at the moment. I can suggest some general improvements you may want to consider: (1) Expanding the lead paragraph of each article (the intro at the top) to more fully summarize the article. I think 2-3 paragraphs is a reasonable length for the lead. (2) Since you're using the Harvard-style parenthetical referencing system, I think your 'Further Reading' sections should be more accurately titled 'Bibliography', while your list of published works by the article subject (e.g. works by Louise Gavan Duffy) should be titled something else, such as 'Selected works'. could probably confirm this. (3) Think about locating one or two more historical photos or images from the Commons to illustrate your articles: for example, towns, cultural or period items, or important buildings or institutions that impacted the life of these women. (4) Make sure every paragraph in the main body of your article ends with at least one citation. These four articles are mostly fine, but I noticed a couple of paragraphs in the Duffy article without citations. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both - I shall see what I can do with these suggestions. I get to the point where, I have done what I know how to do and it's not bad and then....what's next! You know? Get's to a point where I can't see the article for knowing it too well too. So thanks and I'll have a go at those.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * so sorry I have been slow to respond. Real world things going on in droves this week. I recently wrote a similar review for Thsmi002 on Nancy Marcus. I agree that Duffy is the most likely candidate. Lede is too short, further reading section should be minimal. (You should have perused all of them that you have access to and gleaned info from them. Otherwise, it appears that you have not thoroughly researched the subject.) Her publications should indeed be called "Selected works". I am not good with photos, cannot help you there. If you need/want help next week I will have better availability. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Real world being what it is it may take me longer than that to get to a point where I can get more help. I remember reading the info but thinking it was interesting stuff and people might want to read the original. But it's been a while so I'll have to read it all again to remember what got left out and not....also I was less sure then what to include etc. I will have a go and when I get stuck again I'll yell. I should be able to do photos just fine.. Just need to think of which to include etc.. THANK YOU ALL>  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 19:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been through Louise Gavan Duffy for copy editing and made some comments on Antiqueight's talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you've gotten some solid advice here, . I think following Alanna the Brave's advice is excellent and will get your article in shape for nomination. I would just offer a slightly different perspective on two small points. First, it's correct that each paragraph should end in a citation, but even more than that, each sentence should be cited. An exception would be where consecutive sentences would be cited to the same source, you only need to place the citation at the end of the last sentence. Practically that often works out to citing the last sentence of a paragraph. Second, I've noticed there are a lot of different opinions about whether images are required. I know some editors will fail an article without them, whereas others just require that any images used are within the guidelines. I like the latter approach. Go for it if you want to, but I don't think it's a requirement.
 * That leads me to something I found useful before nominating my first article, and that was reading through other nominees and articles that had GA status. Finding other similar biographies and seeing what they look like is a good way to figure out the standard or see how your articles compare. The GA guidelines themselves are also pretty useful. The process can be a little frustrating in that you will see a wide range of quality in the articles passed and in the thoroughness of the review process. I think a key is realizing that the review process is one editor's opinion. The worst that can happen is they fail the article and you have to renominate. Most reviewers will give comments and give you the opportunity to bring the article to the point where they can pass it. Following the advice from other editors here should put you in good position to start the nomination process. Knope7 (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ida Tarbell ready for review
I finished my research and update on Ida Tarbell. I'd be glad to have some folks on the project review it. I do have a question about the lede paragraphs and how much citation goes there if you are referencing an item that has a citation in the main text. Do you give it a citation in both places or just in the main part of the article? The user formerly known as Jaldous1 and now known as...--Auldhouse (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi -- to the best of my knowledge, you don't need to cite any information in the lede as long as that information has already been cited properly in the main part of the article. The Wikipedia Manual of Style page suggests that decision is left up to the editors (citing info in the lede is neither required nor prohibited). I'm happy to take a look at Ida Tarbell tomorrow and provide some proofreading/copy editing assistance if I can. Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * repeating what said, my mentors, Dr. Blofeld (the most prolific article creator on EN-WP) and Montanabw, indicated that the lede should be a summary of already cited materials. The only time a citation is needed in the lede is if a direct quote is used. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * – I went through the article, and here are my thoughts. It's looking pretty good at this point. I've made some copy-edits throughout for grammar, punctuation, et cetera, and I think it's almost ready to be nominated for GA, but there are some things that you may need to address first:


 * You've picked out some great photos (I especially like the Pennsylvania Oil Fields, and the photos of Tarbell and McClure's Magazine), but I think you have too many images overall — it can end up feeling rather cluttered and distracting. You probably don't need images of the people Tarbell wrote about in her biographies (e.g. Roland, Boneparte, and the formal Lincoln portrait). I'd suggest reviewing the images and weeding out the less impactful ones.
 * Be sure that you have verified the copyright information on the photos. Some of the images in commons have scanty information and tags to confirm copyright data. These will be pulled from your GA if they are found to be lacking. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In the 'Early life and education section', you mention "the SIC". Does that stand for South Improvement Company? You should include that acronym sooner and more clearly next to the full name


 * Although you have some fabulous quotations in this article (e.g. Tarbell's "biography on a gallop"), I think you should be wary of relying too heavily on quotes as a whole. Some quotes don't add much to the article, especially if they're located in the lede paragraph. I noticed you put quotation marks around "feminist" in the lede, which makes the word seem false or highly uncertain.


 * You have at least a couple of areas in the article where information has been repeated and/or partially uncited (possibly left over from the original article): the founding of the American Magazine, and the beginning of World War I.


 * It may just be me, but I found the 'Women's suffrage' section a little vague and confusing, possibly because Tarbell's feminism was rather ambiguous in itself. I think it could benefit from another read-through, and possibly some re-writes/re-organization of content. Try not to rely too heavily on quotations about Tarbell, especially at the very beginning of the section. Provide us with lots of objective evidence.


 * I noticed that you've organized your citations via a single basic "References" list, but you've created duplicate citations in order to cite many different page sections from a single book source (e.g. "Weinberg, Steve, Taking on the trust: the epic battle of Ida Tarbell and John D. Rockefeller"). I'm not an expert, but that strikes me as unusual., do you think this could present any issues for a GA nomination, or is this an acceptable way to format citations?
 * I am not really good with technology; however, the format I was taught is the Harvard referencing, which allows you to cite a source once and subsequently add page numbers throughout the article. You can see the referencing as it appears on Margot Fonteyn. Early on, I was nailed for duplicate citations and improper referencing to specific pages. The citation style is fairly simple, in that you simply use a standard citation, such as and add the anchor |ref=harv to the citation as I did. Some do it at the end, I do it immediately following the cite book, etc. In the body, you render the citation as  . If there is no author (or so many that it doesn't render properly) for the piece, add the anchor  |ref= . I am pretty OCD, so I always list the author immediately following the anchor in a citation followed by the title, so that the bibliography can be alphabetized, as it makes it much easier to find the citation. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * At the very end, you mention that Tarbell's brother, Will, came to live on her property. Are you referring to Walter? That's the only living brother you'd mentioned previously.


 * The 'Writing style and methodology' section is tiny. I would suggest either expanding it (you have relevant info about Tarbell's writing style elsewhere in the article) or deleting it and moving the existing quotation somewhere else.


 * The External Links section is extremely long, and I'm wondering if it might benefit from some weeding. You may want to go through it, pick out the strongest/most interesting items, and remove the rest.
 * I concur, external links should be minimal. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful -- let me know if you have questions. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you all so much. This is great feedback. I went ahead and pulled it from the Good Article Review until I've fixed these items. I'm getting married next week--so I may have only a few quiet mornings to work on this, but full speed ahead in August. I'll let you know when I'm done, but if anyone has any other feedback I'd appreciate it. And I will re-work those citations and try that method. I tend to work out of books, so having a better understanding of how to use the citations correctly is key. Also thank you to Alanna the Brave for the copyedit. --Auldhouse (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations ! If you need help with the citations, just ping me. (2 "u"s no "a") SusunW (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Auldhouse (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick update on this. I converted citations, fixed the graphics, cut some quotations, etc. I still need to redo the sections on feminism and writing methodology and then cut the external links area. Those are next on my list. I also had dream wedding and now readying teens for return to school. :-) Auldhouse (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're having a good month, ! :-D Glad to hear everything is going well, both online and offline. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I completed fixes and now will submit it officially for a GA review. --Auldhouse (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

September Clara González or Ángela Acuña Braun
It would appear that both González and Acuña have had biographies written about them. I have access to neither. González, Acuña or anyone else have access to either? I thought I might have found a clue to why Acuña studied chickens "La diarrea blanca bacilar de los pollitos, por Angela Acuña" is all I can see in the preview for this magazine but weirdly though it is in archive.org, I cannot access it. This book also seems to have a bio of Acuna. From the snippet, I get from page 293, her family was wealthy and her parents were Adela Braun Bonilla and Ramon Acuña, but again, I have no access to it or this. My analysis of the two is that Acuña probably has more sourcing available both in Spanish and English. open access journals and google scholar vs for González google scholar with no open access journals. I find newspaper articles on González and the article could definitely be improved, but I think if we are going for GA, we should concentrate on Acuña, unless someone has access to the bios. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not having much luck searching for them here either. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Couldn't access the bios either but maybe some of the snippets from here will help with Acuña.--Ipigott (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that seals it then—focus on Acuña, since the sourcing options are better. SusunW (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hot 100 revisited
Hello, I was requested by to discuss the addition of Lucille Ball, Olivia Newton-John and Virginia Woolf to the Hot 100. She stated that they were all "American Hollywood" celebrities. Lucille Ball is the only one that would fit that description; her article was once a GA, and it would probably be easy to get it back up to that status. Arguably, she is also a pioneering queen of early US television comedy. Olivia Newton-John is an English-Australian entertainer (granted, with success in Hollywood), and Virginia Woolf is an English writer. 2 of the 3 articles are considered Level 4 Vital articles on Wikipedia, and the other (ONJ) is considered Level 5. I specifically chose them because of this importance. I was trying to WP:BB and fill in the gaps and add more articles for people to take note of since we had some vacant spots in the Hot 100. I would think that adding women considered Vital Articles to Wikipedia would be appropriate to populate the Hot 100. I don't have any particular impetus other than their Vital Article status for these particular women. Are there any guidelines you'd like to stipulate for this list, so appropriate additions can be made in the future? LovelyLillith (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Shirley Temple should go on the hot 100 - level 4 vital article, one of the most well-known child stars of all time and a substantially important adult career too. It's a failed FAC, so again, getting it to GA may not be too hard. I think Lucille Ball doesn't really hold as much prominence as she is only really well known in the US (unless I'm mistaken). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's generational, but two things I know, in some of the most surprising and out of the way places on the globe, my small home town in the American mid-south and Lucille Ball are internationally known. I cannot tell you how many times I have been asked about both. My anecdotal evidence is supported: Britain, Spain, Colombia, France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs)
 * The Independent source does say "Younger viewers could have been forgiven for being clueless about Lucille Ball", and while I certainly know who she is and remember hearing about her death on the news, I don't think I've ever even seen a single episode of I Love Lucy (for comparison, Americans probably aren't familiar with Carla Lane). Still, I don't think there's much point debating it - whatever my views, Ball is still a worthy article to improve to GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * you are right, I never heard of Lane, but on the other hand, I didn't own a television from 1978 until 2016 (okay, it's my husband's—I don't even now really claim that I own it, only that he has one ;) and I haven't lived in the US for over a decade.) As to your earlier comment, Temple not just for her acting career, but for her ambassadorial work definitely would belong on a list of vital articles, IMO. SusunW (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Slightly off-topic, but in the late 1980s, Bread was one of the most popular shows on British television and watched by virtually everybody on a Sunday evening (and to get briefly back on-topic, it was one of the few sitcoms to have a strong matriarch as a central character), yet as soon as it stopped airing, everyone seems to have disowned it and forgotten about it, it's not been repeated very often, or at least not prominently, and consequently its Wikipedia article is in pretty poor shape. Funny old thing, popular culture. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO they are fine. Ball was very well-known for her business acumen as well, so she was not simply a "celebrity". I have no earthly idea what the criteria for Vital articles is (I have actually asked, but no one answered the question specifically, though there was some off the wall comment comparing the import of football stars to Simón Bolívar, leading me to believe that it is a collection of famous people, rather than those who had actual global impact). Lacking criteria, my own personal standard is to focus on women who have/had international recognition, regardless of whether that is from fame, infamy, or reputation. SusunW (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Lucille Ball is easy to underestimate as a comedy star; but she was an important woman television producer and entrepreneur. Much of that story is told in the entry of Desilu Productions, but her own article still needs to be considered in that light. (In California elementary schools, she's regularly included in lists of "famous Californians" for kids to do biographies about; I know because my own kid did one, in fourth grade.)Penny Richards (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I agree with that I'm not sure either what constitutes a Vital Article to The Powers That Be, but I figured that might be a good place to source some of the Hot 100 until we have a method in place (or if we already do, please let me know what it is). I think with the current discussion in mind, I'll put up Lucille Ball, Shirley Temple and Virginia Woolf on the list. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I was cautious because the list already has a serious bias towards recent-ish North American entertainers, so it's a bit disappointing to see the gaps filled by yet more of them (Woolf aside). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to throw in some comments: while I don't dispute that Lucile Ball, Olivia John-Newton and Virginia Woolf are all notable women (and deserving of GA articles), I'm thinking we should be careful not to re-fill the Hot 100 list solely with women from only one or two regions of the world. Like The Drover's Wife, I've noticed some regional bias: of the 100 women currently on our list, I'm counting 42 from North America (40 from the USA), 37 from Europe, 10 from Asia, 9 from Africa/Middle East, 1 from an Oceania country (Australia), and 1 from Central/South America. This means the list is 79% North American/European, which is a bit disproportionate (but probably reflective of Wikipedia as a whole). In future, perhaps we should aim to shape this list into being no more than 50% North American/European women? What does everyone think of that? We're starting to see movement in the project (three Hot 100 articles have been passed as GA, with several others nominated), so we'll be able to add new women as we go along. I also think we should discuss articles before adding them to the list.


 * Regarding the Wikipedia Vital Articles lists: to the best of my understanding, they were pretty much compiled on a first-come-first-served basis, with a permanent cap on the number of submissions in each category. If anyone wants to add an article to a category that has reached its limit, they'll now have to argue why their submission should replace an existing submission (i.e. this historical figure is more important than that historical figure). I think this process is problematic -- we can start building our lists from the Vital Articles, but we shouldn't neglect to look elsewhere for important female figures. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I WAS mindful to attempt to find some diversity in the women that I put on the list. Unfortunately the VA categories that I looked at (such as mathematics and religion) either didn't have women at all, they were already GA status, or they were not from underrepresented parts of the world. That's a problem in itself, but I was looking for 3 candidate names, and when I found them, I filled the list. Editors are still free to work on other articles that they may feel are more suitable, or to revise my posts to other women if they feel they would better suit the list. LovelyLillith (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We can always have a look around and suggest ideas; the first non UK, non US article that came to mind was Eva Perón, but that's a GA already - although there are a couple of tags in it, which shouldn't be in a GA at all, so if somebody can quickly fix those (waves to SusunW), that would be fab. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nature of the beast anyone can edit. This one was taken to GA in 2006. Lots of edits since then. I cannot access any of the sources cited and wanting page numbers. Perhaps other sourcing can be found to substantiate the claims. But it won't be a quick fix. I'll try to look at it, but have one that's being reviewed right now, another I am in the middle of writing and Acuña on the boards. I'll do it, it just won't be today or even tomorrow ;)  I like the 50% ratio limit on NA/EU, though I probably would not include CEE, the Caribbean, or Mexico in that portion. SusunW (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the 50% ratio limit would be an excellent idea. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jumping in, the Hot 100 was originally from Vital Articles Levels 3 & 4 (Olivia Newton John is Level 5). Vital articles are definitely subjective. Level 5 is still in progress and I think has suffered from being populated by a small number of well-intentioned editors who are picking articles for areas outside their areas of expertise. There are still a few level 4 women not on our list yet, I think a few of the women might be Asian if memory serves. I think if we are thinking about names to add, we should strive for racial diversity too. An abundance of North American women is less of a problem for me if they come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. I also think the goal of the list should be to give helpful suggedtikns of women withkut GA articles. Having a variety of articles is helpful but at the end of thr day the list doesn't matter that much. We've had some great recent progress on women not found on that list. Knope7 (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All good thoughts! I'm totally okay with your choices for the list -- I just want to get the conversation started for future picks. I've spotted a few possible non-North American/European candidates via browsing the wiki category "High-importance Women's History articles", including Indira Gandhi and Izumo no Okuni (both from the Level 4 Vital Articles). Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to slip in another candidate: Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for future work as well. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Not strictly a WIG, but
I thought watchers may be interested to know that Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography recently became a featured list (UKLG herself is one of the Hot 100). Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Definitely within the spirit of improving coverage of women. I happy to see this progress and maybe it will inspire others to tackle similar lists. Knope7 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Agatha Christie
I see that this article reached GA for a brief period in 2009 but was then delisted. It has now been expanded to about three times its 2009 length and has been far better referenced. It looks to me that with some general improvements in presentation and some careful copyediting, the article could be quickly brought up to GA standard. I'll see if I can devote some time to it myself but would appreciate assistance. I think it goes without saying that Christie is one of the world's most significant female authors, receiving an average of some 5,000 page views a day on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty busy with other Wikipedia projects and real-world work at the moment, but I'm willing to help out by proofreading/copyediting. Just let me know when you're ready for another pair of eyes. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My mom is arriving tomorrow for two weeks. I'll probably be offline more than I am on, but toward the end of the month, between working on Acuña, I can probably help some. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As this has been hanging around for years and years, a month or two won't make much difference. I've already started to work on the presentation, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Women + Law
To go along with the Women in Red editathon topic, I have been working on Elena Kagan, and I plan to do more work on Janet Reno and possibly Sandra Day O'Connor. I know SusunW is also working on Ángela Acuña Braun, which is another great choice. My priority right now is Elena Kagan. She is a United States Supreme Court Justice. I am working on the jurisprudence section for her article. The article is otherwise in decent shape. I have noticed a few sections that can use improvement, and those are 1) Solicitor General, the section is more about her confirmation and ideological criticism rather than what she actually did in the post, 2) the article could use a "Personal life" section. Kagan has never been married but that does not mean she has no personal life. I'd be happy to share ideas and sources I have for the topic, and 3) Recognition could use more substance. I'm sure she's been honored more than is currently mentioned, and if not we can fold what is there into her tenure at SCOTUS. I would like to have the article in nomination shape in the next few weeks. One thing that is nice about the Kagan article is there are a lot of high quality free sources online. Knope7 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent successes
Should we not add a list of recent successes to the main Women in Green page? GAs created under Women in Red are posted on the WiR Showcase page but it is not really appropriate to add articles such as Margot Fonteyn to the WiR list if they were not created there.--Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it too! SusunW (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a section "Recent successes" based on the WiR Showcase list. Many of the articles are based on their inclusion in DYK but there are probably more which have not appeared there or which I have missed. If you know of any, please add them.--Ipigott (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I'm thinking it might be best to stick to a specific time frame for "recent" successes -- maybe GA articles from up to a year ago? Also: I'm not entirely sure we should be listing GA articles by editors who aren't currently listed as WiG members (I noticed one or two). Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking along the same lines but I thought I would just include the list for the past few years to see how people reacted. Unfortunately, it's still quite short for the years covered. Let's first see how others react before we cut it back.--Ipigott (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right about listing only articles improved by WiR members but my general approach to Wikipedia has been that wikiprojects frequently lead to wider participation. I know that some of the most active contributors to Women in Red are not officially members but do their best to support the project. I think the same must be true of WiG.--Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly true! We'll see how it goes. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I've cut it back to 2018 additions. I agree we should be encouraging more active participation.--Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Related to this, would anyone else be interested in tracking all of the Hot 100 successes in a separate list? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but I'm a little unsure about the desirability of having too many different lists/sections. What if we added a special note/icon next to any Hot 100 articles on the 'Recent Successes' list? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Captain Marvel and other female comic-book heroes
Comic-book characters aren't equivalent to prominent historical figures, but comic culture has become a major force in recent years and comic-book movies are one of the few forms of pop-culture that still get seen by mass (vs. niche) audiences that cut across demographics. In 2019, Brie Larson's Captain Marvel will be the first female character to lead a Marvel Studios movie since the company began dominating theaters with the first Iron Man movie in 2008. I took a look at one of the character's entries and noticed her #29 ranking on a published list of the "Sexiest Women in Comics" was part of the intro/lead paragraph. The factoid seems far too trivial to meet site guidelines for inclusion in Intro sections, and making this factoid a top-level point of information seems anti-feminist. I edited it out of the lead (the info still appears in the "Characterization" subsection, which somewhat discusses gender politics around the character's depiction). Edit was immediately reverted. Subsequent discussion on the entry's talk page led to reinstatement of my edit (thx to input from WIG contributors I think) and consensus agreement that this obscure sexiness rating does not merit inclusion in Lead/Intro sections in general.--GDswamp (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * During discussion of the Carol Danvers/Cpt. Marvel article, I found that a single contributor (in 2012) had added sexiness-rank citations to entries for ~70 female comic-book heroes, placed in Intro text in at least 32 cases. I've gone through and demoted the information to "Reception" or "Publication History" sections for 27 entries. Left it in place in 5 entries where the character's sex appeal was so central to her reason-for-being that removing information about her perceived sexiness would be hard to defend (e.g. Red Sonja, #1 on the cited "Sexiest" list, and clearly designed primarily as a fantasy object). In many/most cases, the information still seems (to me) far too trivial to merit inclusion anywhere but in a 'Trivia' section (no such section existed in any entry and I didn't want to attract reverts with a more aggressive approach). I would have deleted the mention altogether in many cases, but this also seemed likely to spark reverts. I instead settled for making the change that received broad support in discussion on the Carol Danvers talk page. Unfortunately, after my edits, the sexiness ranking is now the only listed under "Reception" in many articles. I'm not much of a superhero comic fan myself; I hope more knowledgeable editors will revisit these entries and add information to round out the characterizations presented. My edits only begin to address the ways that prior contributors' choices about how articles are framed, what illustrations are used, and what content is included, effectively amplify the historical anti-feminist trend in comics. --GDswamp (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Geraldine Page
I reviewed Geraldine Page to GA status. Can Page be added to our list of Women in Green? I think she warrants it. Auldhouse (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been offline more than I have been on-line this month. Of course it can be added. SusunW (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sirimavo Bandaranaike
In light of Women in Red's November focus on deceased politicians, I was wondering if we were ready to focus on Bandaranaike? There are quite a few significant sources,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Anyone interested? Obviously we first have to confirm if the information in the article is sourced properly and complete, but there seems to be plenty here and fairly stable with no warring apparent. SusunW (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling a bit pulled in multiple directions these days (work, volunteering, personal writing projects, etc), but I'd love to pitch in if possible. :-) Maybe you could assign me a specific task/resource/section to work on? If I remember correctly, I think had also expressed interest in working on Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, totally get that, my September and October were full of real life complications. Seems to me, there are an awful lot of sections that would be less choppy if we segmented it by decade, or terms in office. Is there a particular section you are interested in working on? I thought I'd just start at the beginning and work through the sources already on the file to see what still lacks citations. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll have to see how I go - i'm still keen, but I'm sort of on wikibreak right now and frantically trying to finish a months-long project first. Will see how I go once that's done. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * -- I think it would make the most sense to segment the article by decade (with relevant subheadings), since Banadaranaike's terms in office were often separated by other positions/jobs. Personally, I'd like to start working on that tiny "Death" section at the end, and maybe add some information about Banadaranaike's legacy; it feels like there should be much more here, considering the length of her career. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , please hop in. I'm done for the night. I've worked through most of it, to 1986 anyway. I got rid of beaucoups of headings, as it was like someone added a new heading after each sentence. I've grouped them under her various political positions and terms, but if you think that should change, I don't have a problem with that. If you happen to run across her mom's death in a reliable source ... SusunW (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. I'll keep an eye out for the date of her mom's death. I do think you've made the headings/organization much clearer than it was before -- no rush to make more changes immediately. We can see how it goes! Alanna the Brave (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ufff, I think I'm done. I took her children out the the lede, as IMO, they belong in the legacy section. There are still a few citations needed (3 I think) or that information needs to go. I tried, though it is tough for me, to "Bitish"ise the English. LOL Also tried to give context of the historical things that were happening so someone should probably review to see if there is enough or too much. I know squat about photos, as we are aware—so if anyone thinks others should be added, please do. I am unclear on the copyright status of the ones on the article, as does not appear publishing information is given? If I missed anything significant or any changes need to be made, feel free to do whatever you think needs be done to improve it. I'll ask to do a c/e when we're done. SusunW (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- as always, I am dazzled by your productivity. ;) I'm still struggling to find much Wiki-editing time, but I will happily read through the article on Friday and see if I can make any more useful changes (I'm sure I could find at least a couple more images to enhance the article). Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for all your work Alanna and Ian. I worked on this again today, to input dates for the terms of office added by Blackknight12. I moved the genealogy thing Blackknight12 input to see also, as none of it is cited and that is problematic for a GA. I found a wee bit more on her illnesses, Ian. She had a stroke in 1991, which apparently was the start of her decline. I am researching two photos that I think we can add. I have two possibles. Other than that, I think we are about done. If y'all can read through it one last time, I'd like to shoot for nominating it by the 20th. SusunW (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been through it once more making a few more minor edits. Suggest you now go ahead and nominate for GA. It's not often that we have such detailed coverage of a female political figure.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , one last thing: there were three confusingly-worded sentences (in the "Second Term" section) which I couldn't immediately correct due to my unfamiliarity with the original source material. I inserted editor "comments" by those sentences -- are you able to fix those, or would you like me to tackle them? Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * working on them, as I am doing my final read-through. If you will follow along behind and see if you think I addressed them, that'd be great. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do! Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I'm done except for uploading my two photos :) SusunW (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome -- I'm going to take one last quick scan through the article... Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , there's one remaining confusing sentence: "She announced that her government would not recognize Israel, until the country peacefully settled its problem with its Arab neighbours and officially granted recognition to East Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam, and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam." Did Bandaranaike officially grant recognition to East Germany and North Korea (etc,), or did she announce that Israel must officially recognize those countries before she recognized Israel? I'm assuming it's the first option, but I can't access that JSTOR source to check. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * so glad you are reviewing it, as I *know* what I meant, but other's don't necessarily ;) Changed to "with its Arab neighbours. She officially" is that clearer? Also, is the praying picture too big? I have no idea how to make it smaller. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- that's much clearer. :-) I've shrunk the praying picture (and you can further adjust the "px" size if you wish). I think we're all set! Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Found one more set of images I have asked the graphics lab to help with As I am unclear on the status of the photos that were already in the article, I want to be sure we have ones we know will be able to stay. At any rate, as soon as they reply, will complete the nomination process. SusunW (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, nominating it now. We did great! So much better an article than it was when we started! SusunW (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this discussion with interest: I'd be happy to review the nomination. Vanamonde (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yippee kayoooooo! Thanks SusunW (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Good to see all the extra illustrations. They really help the article along.--Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I'm learning. Still not comfortable with adding photos, but I think I have the research part about copyright down. Choosing which ones to add it difficult, but I just tried to look at the article as a canvas and tried to balance it, if that makes sense. SusunW (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Woo Hoo! Once more teamwork prevailed in getting this article promoted. I've nominated for DYI. If anyone wants to add additional hooks, feel free. Template:Did you know nominations/Sirimavo Bandaranaike SusunW (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

1919-1920
This could be a fun focus for us for our 2019 goals—Suffragettes from around the world. Anyone interested? SusunW (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm! That could be neat. I'm interested. We've almost completed our 2018 goal (25 GA nominations), so now is definitely a good time to start thinking about new goals. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm working on Lola Alvarez Bravo. Should be ready for nom #25 and a copyedit in a few days :)
 * Sounds good! Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea! I'm curious what the contours would be. Would we focus on suffragettes who worked to expand the vote in 1919, or would we look more broadly at women who expanded voting rights before and after? Knope7 (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty wide open, but going forward to the 100th US anniversary in 2020, clearly a lot of women to choose from. The timeline of women's suffrage is obviously incomplete, as lots of the countries/dates I found in the thread are missing. Then there are individual states in US/Canada, so we can focus on specific women, or the state/country movements, or whatever. Just thought it would be a good tie-in. SusunW (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the idea of keeping our scope broader: suffragettes working before, during & after 1919. Maybe we could try to compile a global list of some key suffrage figures (a bit like our "Hot 100" list, but smaller), and aim to work our way through that list by the end of 2019? Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of broad coverage as well. As many have noted, a global focus does more to increase the balance in the encyclopedia. I also agree we should probably make a list. My plate is pretty crazy at the moment, one GA being reviewed another I am drafting, but I can add names and will commit to working on articles. SusunW (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * While an initial emphasis on suffragettes and their successes (such as the first women elected to national parliaments) would be a useful focus for a start, I was thinking we might include other areas in which women first made a mark 100 years ago. For example, I recently wrote a short article on the First World Congress of Jewish Women. While writing articles on several of the participants, I have seen that there were quite a number of notable developments about 100 years ago, some of which are included in the Timeline of women in religion. As time permits, I now hope to prepare month-by-month articles for the months of 2019, e.g. Women's anniversaries in January 2019, containing events to be remembered or commemorated in January 1919 (or even January 1969 or January 1819). It might be useful to start more broadly with Women's anniversaries in 2019 and work back from there. I should get a better idea of the scope over the next few days. For Women in Green, it should certainly provide an incentive for improvements to articles on the key figures or indeed those describing the events or historical developments themselves. I'll keep you posted on how things develop.--Ipigott (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I love this idea. I've been collecting a few books on some key Australian suffragettes so it's a great opportunity to put them to use. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yay! seems like it is a good proposal for us. A few names to consider: Soraya Tarzi (Afghanistan); Diana Abgar (Armenia); Khadija Alibeyova (Azerbaijan); Františka Plamínková (Czechoslovakia); Gertrude Grogan or no idea how to title Lady Sidney Mary Catherine Anne (née Hobart-Hampden) Farrar (British East Africa/Kenya); Aletta Jacobs (the Netherlands). SusunW (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Constance Markievicz, Ireland; Maria Dulębianka, and, which of Famous Five for Canada? SusunW (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * -- oh, tough choice! :-) I think Nellie McClung was the Famous Five member I heard most about growing up (she played the lead role in a "mock parliament" session, where a group of women staged a public debate on whether men should have the right to vote). A few other suffragists/suffragettes I've found: Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin (African-American ), Gina Krog (Norwegian), and Fusae Ichikawa (Japanese). I suppose we would be amiss if we didn't also include American Susan B. Anthony. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes, it is tough to decide. Found a great source which gives development in numerous countries and a bio of the involvement of Ariadna Tyrkova-Williams (Russian) (p 160-176) and bits on Rosika Schwimmer (Hungary) (p 242-258) SusunW (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging some other WiG members:, , ,,, , , , , , , , , -- what do you think of this discussion so far? Does it sound like a goal you'd be interested in contributing to over the course of 2019? Any suggestions for other key suffragists/suffragettes from other countries? I think this would have to be a group effort. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea a lot. Happy to help. I could look into New Zealand suffragettes. I know there is a mural dedicated to leading suffragettes in Aukland. PMCH2 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * She is not exactly a suffragist, but I have been drafting a total overhaul of Alexandra Kollontai, a socialist activist and diplomat active in the era we are concerned with here. It usually takes me awhile to work out a GA article, especially from scratch, but I promise to put all my efforts into it.TheGracefulSlick (talk)
 * I am highly music/audio focused (I am trying to organize a Soundgirls group to start editing Wikipedia) so I thought I would take your challenge and put another layer to it. There is an opera about Emily Davison that could use an article, there could be an article about the songs of women's suffrage, Ethel Smyth has some discussions on the talk page, Mary Davenport Engberg is the first US symphony orchestra conductor (stub article), harpist of the time Edna Phillips' article needs work. I can focus on those. Lyrelyrebird (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the way you are both showing how the idea can be broadened and thus appeal to many. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like there is a lot of support for this overall proposal. Does anyone want to start drafting a sub-page for tracking? Knope7 (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can pull something together today. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Goal Completed
Congratulations to us! We met our 2018 goal of 25 nominations for 2018. They aren't all reviewed yet, but this was a pretty big goal and I am so happy that we managed to work on so many significant women over the year. SusunW (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yay! High-five to everyone who contributed. I think we all did some great work this year. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the credit for this achievement is due to you, . You've really made a huge effort on GAs this year. I see 24 are listed on the main Women in Green page. Which are the ones still awaiting review?--Ipigott (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but as you know, I didn't do any of them alone. To my mind, it is always a team effort. Per our 2018 Goals the ones still needing review are Karen Carpenter, Ashleigh Barty, Aryna Sabalenka, Ida Tarbell, Naomi Osaka, and Lola Alvarez Bravo are still to be reviewed. If you would, Ian, please keep an eye on Álvarez, as I am unsure of what my schedule will be over the next several weeks. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

WiG tab system & "bulletin board" page
Okay, and  (and anyone else who's interested) -- I've looked into how to create some basic tabs, and I've drafted a sandbox version of what our tabs (and a new "bulletin board" page for help requests) could potentially look like. What do you think? Would you find this useful? Any suggestions for changes? Alanna the Brave (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it looks really nice. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like it a lot! Makes it easy to see what is in development. SusunW (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks and . :-) I'll aim to make those features real over the next couple of days. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed! Nice work! Now that you know how to create tabs, is it easy to add more? I was thinking a 2019 Goals tab and a discussion/talk page tab (I've noticed those are fairly common). Knope7 (talk)
 * Thanks! I like that idea, -- I could probably add those extra tabs. Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yay! I like it ! SusunW (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft proposal: 2019 Goals for Women in Green
Okay -- based on discussions above, I have tentatively drafted a goal-tracking page for our 2019 goals. Feedback? What kind of changes should I make? A couple of notes: (1) we didn't quite hammer out the more specific details of our suffrage-related goal, such as number of articles, but there seemed to be general support for a focus on suffragists, suffragettes, and works related to suffrage (e.g. suffrage music). There was also support for a global focus (i.e. women's suffrage around the world). (2) I added a second 'Wildcard' goal (spontaneous idea!) to accommodate GA nominations totally unrelated to suffrage. This might make it easier for all Women in Green participants to contribute to group goals – no matter what they're working on. I'm just tossing it in for now to see how it looks. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it. 40 articles is certainly ambitious, but it'd be great if we pulled it off! SusunW (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it too! Thanks for jumping on that so quickly! You're spontaneous idea looks like a good one to me. Knope7 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, , and  -- Any final feedback on this goals page draft before I move it into the mainspace? Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Lyrelyrebird (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am just appreciative of the “wild card” being included. Two drafts I was really focused on were more about women in politics—technically outside of the previous scope.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.--Ipigott (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alrighty -- all sounds good. I'll launch the 2019 goal tracking page now. Enjoy the holidays, everyone! Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for setting the goals up, Alanna. I like having the wildcard included. Looking forward to helping. Happy New Year everyone! PMCH2 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll add that I'm playing around with a crowd sourced list of women to work on. I threw something together quickly just to demonstrate what I had in mind. I was thinking a table might be useful to provide more information. Please take a look here. Ideas and improvements are welcome. Knope7 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it! Thanks . This looks handy for keeping track of our in-progress articles (and good for inspiring each other, attracting new project members, etc). We could include a link to this crowd-sourced list on the 2019 Goal Tracking page. One thought: we would probably need to make it clear somehow (maybe by signing our names in the 'Notes' section?) which editors are currently working on which articles. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of using notes to say who is working on the article, maybe also to put requests like "Knope7 is working on the article, looking for help with sources" or "looking or help with copy editing" etc. I also toyed with the idea of including a column for very brief descriptions of the subject of the article, although if we do that we might want to get rid of either the country or project columns to avoid clutter. I'm definitely interested in hearing what information would help other editors in deciding what articles to work on. Finally, I added the first 5 names somewhat at random (I have been working on Perkins who is mostly known for other things but did work for suffrage early in her career). I was mostly looking for variety a variety of sizes, quality, countries, etc. Feel free to remove any of the names. Knope7 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorporating requests for help would be excellent. :-) I can't speak for others, but I'm pretty interested by the article size and 2018 page-views information, which could help me zero in on more neglected suffrage figures (or alternatively, tidy up a hugely well-visited page). I think it's worth keeping the country column (since we're aiming to cover a wide geographical range), but you might be able to remove the "clean-up tag" column without much trouble -- very few of the listed articles have any tags. Alanna the Brave (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have moved the draft, it's now here. I'm fine with removing the clean-up column, especially if we are gong to put requests for smaller tasks in notes. I think it would be nice to have some place to let editors know about smaller tasks they can help with. My hope is we could get some editors involved who don't want to take on a full article, but can lend their skills towards one aspect of an article. Knope7 (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * and : what if we created a new section on the WiG mainpage for people to list requests for assistance with smaller tasks? We could call it something like the WiG bulletin board... or the WiG cafe or salon. ;-) Having it on the mainpage might make it more straightforward to find (and the Talk page could be reserved for other discussions or more in-depth questions). Editors could list their GA article-in-progress and specify what task they need help with (sources, copyedits, images, etc), and other editors could respond accordingly. Alanna the Brave (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several projects that use various tabs, like for example this one. Is that what you mean? SusunW (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * -- That looks a little more technically complicated (I was literally just thinking of starting a section on the mainpage with a new heading!), but yeah, a tab could definitely work too. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of trying new things to get more editors involved. I say go for it! Knope7 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, that. I am not remotely technical as we are all aware, but am in favor of anything that helps improve the quality of our articles. Had a |discussion] with about that very thing and their proposal to work on Minnette de Silva, whose article is a good candidate for our attention. SusunW (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Minnette de Silva definitely sounds like a neat figure. Alrighty -- I'll do some digging today and see if I can learn something about creating tabs! Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I really like the work you guys are doing here! I've also signed up to support you guys and the project! I hope we can get Minnette de Silva going. I've also been on the lookout for more Sri Lankan women, (I work mainly within Wikiproject Sri Lanka, as coverage of Sri Lanka on the internet is scarce, more so for women) who are great candidates for the 2019 goals, Ezlynn Deraniyagala, Cissy Cooray, Shirani Bandaranayake. I only fear that I wont have so much solid time to dedicate to such a project, but I'm always willing to help out.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are so many ways you can help, even if that is not writing, which takes time. Finding sources is always difficult, especially for women. As your location dictates what you will find in a given area, having you in Sri Lanka is a big help to improving articles about people from there. Another way you can help, is if you take photographs. For de Silva, it would be fabulous to have usable photos of her most iconic buildings. I'll be glad to help you work on her, but it may be next month. SusunW (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Karen Carpenter
As the Rambling Man doesn't feel he can tackle GA reviews at the moment, is anyone else able to pick this one up? It's been actually over year since I originally improved the article, and don't have the print sources I originally used to hand right now, but hopefully those aren't insurmountable issues. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to wait a couple more days, I think I'd enjoy reviewing this (if anyone else wants to pick it up in the meantime, I'm fine with that, too). Vanamonde (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking for help
Hi,

Sorry for cross posting, to get better attention

I was looking for some small help. I created a new article en:Kithaab-a play about women rights issues- which has been copy edited and is ready for translation in various languages. Looking for your possible help in translating the article en:Kithaab to your language. If you are unable to spare time yourself then may be you like to refer the same to some other translator.

Thanking you, with warm regards

Bookku (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Theodora Kroeber
I've sent Theodora Kroeber to GAN, as a somewhat unplanned offshoot of my project to get Ursula K. Le Guin to GAN and thence to FAC. It's quite a short article, if anyone would be interested in reviewing it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

World History or Politics and government
When nominating an article for GA, does anyone know what the dividing line is between the subtopics "World History" and "Politics and government"? I looked around and I can't seem to find any guidance for which subtopic to choose for suffragists. I did find a biography in World History for someone who died in the 1980s, but I have also seen some biographies on figures who have been gone longer nominated in Politics and government. Is it nominator's choice? Knope7 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have any special insight, but I think it's the nominator's choice. I've seen a few political activists under 'Politics and Government', so a suffragist could totally be considered as part of that category. World History seems to be more of a place for articles that don't fall under any other category. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the main purpose of choosing a subtopic is to help potential reviewers find the article on the list of nominations. So, pick whichever one you think will get you a reviewer faster (or a higher-quality reviewer). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your thoughts! It sounds like I can't really go wrong. My first suffragist was on of the first women in Congress, so Politics and government feels like a good fit. Knope7 (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ursula K. Le Guin
I have nominated Ursula K. Le Guin, one of our hot 100, at GAN. It took considerably longer than expected, but it's a large topic. If anyone wants to do a review, or even provide critique outside of the formal review process, I'd much appreciate it. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewed and promoted, for anyone watching! Vanamonde (Talk) 18:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow -- that was fast. Congrats ! Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , add both her and her mother to the 2019 goals list. :-) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mostly because performed a speedy review.  added, thanks for the reminder. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Oei Hui-lan
I took over the abandoned review of Oei Hui-lan a while ago, but the original nominator no longer appears active. If someone from this wikiproject wishes to respond to my comments at Talk:Oei Hui-lan/GA1 that would be great. I don't think it is far from passing. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi -- thanks for letting us know. If you're willing to wait until the weekend, I'll reserve some time on Saturday to take a look at the article and see what I can do. I could definitely expand the lead section. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind offer. In the meantime, I have tried to deal with the review queries. There's just one thing that surprises me, the missing date of Oei Hui-lan's death; only the year is given. For someone who died in New York City, there must be exact records but unfortunately I do no know where to look for them. Please let me know if you can help.--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I am happy with the state the article is in regarding the Good Article criteria and have passed it. You are still welcome to make any further additions to improve it. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Late responding (I've been buried in work this week), but thanks for handling that review, ! It's definitely odd about the missing date of death. I had a look through some academic databases and vital stats websites yesterday, but I couldn't locate anything. There must be an obituary somewhere -- maybe one of the newspaper archive websites has something. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps can help with this. She's pretty good at such things.--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * totally weird that her whole family seems to have obits in the NY times, but she doesn't. Social Security Death masterfile says she died in December 1992, in Lenox Hill, Upper East Side, NYC. I checked newspapers.com; newspaperarchive.com, Old Fulton and nyshistoricnewspapers.org but couldn't find a closer date. SusunW (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Very weird. I notice the article says she outlived both her husband and sons (passing her 100th birthday), so I wonder if she was simply on her own at the end (no close relatives or friends in New York left to write and submit the obit?). Either that, or maybe there was some kind of internal family drama going on that we don't know about. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you say, no idea. It's frustrating, but maybe at some point someone in New York City can find a record. At least the SS death master file confirms the month and place, which may help someone find the actual date. SusunW (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Julia Margaret Cameron
I've just been looking at Julia Margaret Cameron now that the lead image has reached featured picture status. It looks to me that with a little more effort, we could bring the article up to GA. Anyone interested?--Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can contribute as a proofreader/copy editor, if that would help. Just let me know when you're ready for another set of eyes. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Polk Fall
An editor using an IP address made a GA nomination for Sarah Polk Fall. It looks to me like the IP address was banned. I'm going to try and respond to the points raised in the review, but it might take some time. Any help would be appreciated Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Success! Thank you, for your help on this one! Knope7 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk page template for GA nomination
I recently expanded Bekah Brunstetter, which was a successful DYK nomination a little while ago thanks to help from other editors. The original creator of the article has since nominated the article for GA at WP:GAN. I expected it to pop up on the WiG article alerts, since it has a WikiProject Women Writers template on the talk page. But I don't see it there. Is it strictly WikiProject Women talk page templates that get picked up for article alerts? Or am I missing something else obvious? Bakazaka (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's my understanding that the WiG article alerts are currently programmed to catch articles tagged with either WikiProject Women OR WikiProject Women's History, as these are the two most common/consistently-used tags for articles about women (WP Women for any biographical subjects born after 1950, and WP Women's History for biographical subjects born before 1950). might be able to confirm this? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I recall, you need to tag the article with WikiProject Women or WikiProject Women's history for it to be flagged up correctly. I've added WikiProject Women to the article, so it should appear when the bot gets round to having a look. The last GA I wrote for the project, Fanny (band), is tagged with WikiProject Women's history. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thank you both for the explanation (and the reminder to tag articles on women writers with WikiProject Women Writers and either WikiProject Women or WikiProject Women's History). Bakazaka (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ishi in Two Worlds
Ishi in Two Worlds, written by Theodora Kroeber, was passed as a GA not too long ago. I'm a little uncertain about which of our successes lists this can be included in; will someone else do the honors? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I added to the recent successes and master list. Though the subject of the work wasn't a woman, the work was created by one and thus fits in our scope. SusunW (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! That was, in fact, the source of my confusion; I knew we tracked pages about works by women, or about women, but wasn't sure where. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

new project member introduction + two articles
Hi there, I have just joined the project + was so happy to hear from that Women in Green exists! I recently wrapped up improving two articles (Adriana Briscoe and Susan Kauzlarich) as part of my WikiEdu Scientists and Scholars Class this Spring. Both were put forward as GAN prior to joining this project and prior to realizing the ORES script is not always accurate....I'm a new wikipedian and would be appreciative for feedback or reviews on either article if they are of interest to any of you! Also by means of introduction, this week I am working on improving the biography of Eve Marder. In general I'm trying to keep my user page updated on what I'm working on and collaboration and feedback are always most welcome :) many thanks, alie Nanobright (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , welcome aboard! I rarely work on living people for GA because quite obviously keeping abreast of changes in their lives requires lots of vigilance and maintenance, so that they are not delisted. My schedule is kind of crazy right now, but if someone else doesn't pick up your request and give you some feedback, ping me and I'll try to take a look. SusunW (talk)
 * Welcome ! I'm happy to hear you're working on bios of women in science, and I'd be glad to collaborate sometime. One of my projects last year was the expansion of the Timeline of women in science (which you might be interested in adding to?), and I think there are a ton of cool scientists in the timeline whose articles could use improvement. Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you so much and ! that makes a lot of sense about the consideration of needing to keep an article updated if it's a living person nominated for GAN...really good to know for next time. the timeline of women in science is super cool! and very helpful and as you mention a really great starting point for future articles needing improvements. Nanobright (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

50th Anniversary of Apollo 11. Need DYKs of women in space
I are working on a project to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11. The plan is a friendly takeover of the entire Main Page featuring space exploration as an overall theme. You can see what we have so far at this demo page. Of course, as usual, systemic bias is an issue and we are having trouble featuring women in space. Please assist us in creating DYK nominations by creating new pages or from the following articles which need to be brought to GA to qualify: Please help us feature any women in space-related articles at DYK on July 21. (Note to people in the far west: although we may remember Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon was on July 20, in UTC, it was on July 21.)
 * The Mercury 13 – any of them and the article itself, including the redirect Gene Nora Stumbough
 * Valentina Tereshkova – where my efforts are currently focused
 * Svetlana Savitskaya
 * Sally Ride
 * Judith Resnik
 * Kathryn D. Sullivan
 * Mae Jemison
 * Basically anyone on the list of female spacefarers

I am watching this page but please ping me at any DYK and GA nomination pages created. This post is a duplicate of one placed at WT:WPWIR.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a really nice idea. I left a message over on the talk page for Mae Jemison. From a quick look at the articles above, Jemison and Resnik look the closest to being ready for GA nomination. I think roping in a longtime editor at either page would make the process go a lot faster. I am happy to provide support throughout the GA nomination process, but I don't think I know enough about the topic to lead the way. Knope7 (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Congrats, ! Nice work on the Mae Jemison article. For those who don't know, the article has now been promoted to GA and passed DYK in plenty of time for the July 21 feature. Knope7 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou
Impressed by how this has taken off. It badly needs focus on here. Great job everybody! Nothing beats quality!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers! :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt
I see my article on Hannah Arendt is still listed as requiring promotion - however it is actually GA. Whose responsibility is it to update list, since it does not seem to be automatic. Also what is the process for getting articles onto that list, since I have another one that I would like to get to GA?--Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi -- that's great to hear you've brought Hannah Arendt up to GA status. Congrats! I remember noticing last year that the article was under review, but I didn't know it had finally passed. I've updated our mainpage to show that Hannah Arendt is a GA article. All WP Women in Green members can add new GA articles about women and women's works to the 'Current Good Articles' and 'Recent Successes' lists (or remove former GA articles that have been de-listed), so you're welcome to update the page yourself in future. The 'Hot 100' list is drawn from Wikipedia's Vital Articles watchlist, and it's basically just meant to help us keep track of some of our priority articles (and encourage editors to tackle them). Any article about women or women's works falls under the scope of Women in Green, regardless of whether or not it's on the Hot 100 list. Let me know if you have any other questions about the project. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome, ! I'll add that once an article is nominated, you can add it to our 2019 Goal Tracking list. Those are just articles within our scope that project members have nominated for GA status this year. Knope7 (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again, -- I'm going to remove Brynhild Olivier from the Hot 100 list for now. Apologies if my previous explanation was unclear: our Hot 100 list contains only articles from Wikipedia's Vital Article project (Olivier is not one of those). We're also trying to keep our Hot 100 list at 100 articles only. Adding new articles would require opening up a discussion. If you're interested in tackling one of the other Hot 100 articles (e.g., Edith Wharton or Rosa Parks), you're welcome to put your name by that article to show you're working on it. For Brynhild Olivier, however, I'd suggest waiting until the article has passed a GA review, and then adding the article to 'Recent Successes' and 'Current Good Articles' (not 'Hot 100'). Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)