Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Archive 4

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supriya Shrinate
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supriya Shrinate. Venkat TL (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling § Splitting off list of awards
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling § Splitting off list of awards. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice re J. K. Rowling
An editor has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red report for 2021
Inspired by the Women in Green report on the WiR talk page, I have put together some of the principal WiR results for 2021. These results may be useful in discussing priorities for future planning.--Ipigott (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall the percentage of women's biographies increased from 18.67% in January to 19.10% at the end of the year; there were 24,787 new biographies of women although the majority of these were not created specifically under Women in Red. By the end of the year, there were 355,957 biographies of women on the English Wikipedia.
 * Our WiR metrics pages record a total of 26,805 articles created in 2021, 3,301 less than the 30,106 created in 2020. This can be explained by our discontinuing manual additions to the lists from February 2021, subsequently relying fully on bot-listed results.
 * Membership according to our mailing lists was 1,185 including 114 members who joined in 2021. (These figures may not fully reflect membership as a few members have requested removal from the lists while a number of non-members have added their names.) About half of those listed are no longer active.
 * A total of 5,722 articles were listed as new or improved on our meetup pages, of which 2,080 were on #1day1woman, 1,598 from the Continental Contest (Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania), 1,584 under other monthly priorities and 460 in connection with our year-long emphasis on Women's rights. The most popular topic was our three-month-long Olympics & Paralympics with 1,185 new or improved articles of which 195 were subsequently deleted.
 * The most popular monthly priority was Women writers in September with 225 new or improved articles, the least popular Gender studies in April with only five articles listed.
 * According to WikiProject Women in Red/DYK, over 500 articles tagged with a Women in Red banner were highlighted on the Main Page as DYKs. For example 105 of those under #1day1woman were displayed as DYK. Many articles were also displayed on the Main Page under In the news.
 * Articles created under WiR and subsequently ranked FA or GA can be seen at Women in Green.
 * Thank you,, for this interesting report. It's especially heartening to know that the most popular monthly event was Women Writers! Happy New Year to you and everyone at Women in Red, and keep up the good work. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As soon as I saw 's report for 2021, I though we should have one too. As we have all the data, it's simply a matter of extracting and summarizing the most important items. (Hope my arithmetic was OK.) Like you, I was pleased to see that Women Writers did so well but was surprised at how many new articles were listed at #1woman1day rather than under our other monthly priorities, many of which were really disappointing. While our monthly events provide minor improvements in our coverage of unexplored areas, it's pretty obvious that topics such as artists, writers and STEM continue to be the most popular. On the basis of our Continental Contest, it looks as if we should start planning another competition along similar lines. I was wondering if we could put something together on award winners (based on generally accepted notable awards) or perhaps on women by language: not just the major world languages such as Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi, French, German, Portuguese, etc., but by the relatively minor languages in the developing countries, including those of indigenous peoples. Looking for inspiration on how this could be presented.--Ipigott (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm drinking my first cup of coffee this morning and thinking more on these observations. Welcome 2022! To keep communication in a central place, how about if I post some thoughts (and encourage pagestalkers to do so, too) at the Women in Red talkpage (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Thanks, again, Ian, for putting the conversation in motion. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I agree. As you've probably noticed, I've moved my comments to WiR for further discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Women of the Otherworld
Hello, WikiProject,

It would be great if someone who knew more about tables and content creation than I could look over and fix this messed-up article. It probably just needs a few curly brackets in the right place. The article was listed as being covered by this WikiProject (along with WikiProject Novels) which is why I'm coming here. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've added a close tag ({{code| |} }}) to the table. It's still a mess, but at least it's formatted coherently now. pburka (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Zelda Fitzgerald under FA review
I have nominated Zelda Fitzgerald for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Flask (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WiR Literary Lists
Hi, all! I just wanted to share that I've created a few lists of literary awards that include a number of red-listed women. I'd love to have your help building these book lists out!
 * Rise: A Feminist Book Project
 * Lambda Literary Award for Bisexual Literature
 * Lambda Literary Award for Lesbian Memoir or Biography
 * Lambda Literary Award for Lesbian Mystery
 * Lambda Literary Award for LGBT Studies
 * Lambda Literary Award for Transgender Literature

Significa liberdade (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ; these pages are great! Repeating here what I wrote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, I am really supportive of the idea to now create List of LGBT literary awards, which, IMO, is blaringly missing from . As for the List of LGBT-related awards page, it should have a link to List of LGBT literary awards. Again, just my $0.02. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , Would you want to take a look at this draft? Draft:List of LGBT Literary Awards? I feel it's a bit messy right now. Do you have a better idea for how it should be organized?Significa liberdade (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's wonderful, . I added one of the "incomplete" templates at the top — customary for list-class articles. I think it's okay to move it to mainspace. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What about adding an "established" column? It might be nice to be able to sort to find the oldest or newest awards, and it could serve a double purpose for discontinued awards, too, e.g. Lambda Literary Award for AIDS Literature; 1989–1991. pburka (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea, ; ping . --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks and ! I had started putting one in, but I had actual work to do, so decided not to do the research right now, lol. Significa liberdade (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping and : What would you think about a column for the LGBT group recognized (e.g., lesbian)? I think it might be cool to be able to sort by group and genre, but that might start to get messier.

Thoughts on the Education of Daughters Featured article review
I have nominated Thoughts on the Education of Daughters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this writer notable?
Hi, please could someone experienced in the notability of writers please take a look at Draft:Xinia Marie Estrada? Thanks Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the notability, but I do think the page needs more sources and the style of writing should be reconsidered. Sentences like these seem a bit too poetic for an encyclopedia: "An accused humanistic vocation and the family’s progressive ideas moved them to Heredia", "Married and mother of two, Xinia Estrada moved to the United States in 1992", "As a writer, Xinia Estrada broke into the Costa Rican cultural landscape as a result of her association with feminist movements, and her desire to disseminate it through literary channels." Laurier (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked for any further sources than what is cited in the article, but what's there doesn't seem enough to get through AfC to me. Of the five current sources:
 * Carmen Naranjo; Linda Berrón (1993). Relatos de mujeres : antología de narradoras de Costa Rica – looks to be an anthology of fiction, including a piece by Estrada. Even if there is an in-depth discussion of Estrada herself, I'm not sure this counts towards the independent sources asked for by WP:GNG
 * Meza Márquez, Consuelo (2008-01-20). "Narradoras centroamericanas contemporáneas: la utopía en la escritura" – doesn't appear to mention Estrada at all, or support the claim which it is a citation for.
 * Cuento y poesía – another anthology which includes works by Estrada; also not independent.
 * Anales de Literatura Española – the article says her work is "mentioned" in this; I doubt it counts towards GNG
 * Meza-Márquez, Consuelo. "Cuerpo Femenino LIBRO" – single mention in a list of authors; certainly doesn't count towards GNG
 * In conclusion: if she's notable, the current article is doing a poor job demonstrating it and I certainly wouldn't want to be the one who took responsibility for moving it out of draftspace. In addition to the questions over notability, the copyediting needed as mentioned by  (I suspect due to the author not being a native speaker of English?) and the apparent COI editing (the main editor is called jaywilsonestrada – are they a relation?) are concerns. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Feminism and Folklore Wikipedia Campaign 2022
Dear member users of Wiki project Women writers,

You are humbly invited to participate and organise Feminism and Folklore 2022 writing competion on the English Wikipedia from 1st February 2022 till 31st March 2022. This year Feminism and Folklore will focus on feminism, women biographies and gender-focused topics for the project in league with Wiki Loves Folklore gender gap focus with folk culture theme on Wikipedia.

You can help us in enriching the folklore documentation on Wikipedia from your region by creating or improving articles based on folklore around the world, including, but not limited to folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, women and queer personalities in folklore, folk culture (folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales and more. Users can contribute to new articles or translate from the list of suggested articles.

Organisers are requested to work on following action items to sign up their communities for the project:
 * 1) Create a page for the contest.
 * 2) Set up fountain tool/dashboard.
 * 3) Create the local list and mention the timeline and local/international prizes.
 * 4) Request local admin for site notice
 * 5) link the local page and the fountain/dashboard link on the meta project page.

Learn more about the contest and prizes from our project page. Feel free to contact us on our meta talk page or reach out to us on Email if you need any assistance.

Looking forward to your immense coordination.

Thank you. Tiven Gonsalves Feminism and Folklore Team

-- ✝iѵ ɛɳ  २२४० †ลℓк †๏ мэ 06:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Now over 60,000 articles
Launched by in August 2014, this project now has over 60,000 articles, covering writers, editors, books, organizations and many related interests. Over 700 of them have reached GA or higher and thousands have been promoted to DYK. The project was something of a forerunner to Women in Red which was created the following year, with Rosie as a co-founder. It's heartening to see how many interesting new articles about women writers are created every day, thanks to the enthusiasm of its members and contributors. It's good to see the project going from strength to strength.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding my congratulations to everyone who, through the years, has been involved with WikiProject Women Writers! Here's to the next 60,000 articles!
 * How WPWW got its start: Beginning more than a decade ago, I noticed other editors create WikiProject Women's History (2011), WikiProject Women Scientists (2012), and WikiProject Women Artists (2013). Probably because my mom was a writer, my grandmother was a writer, and I'm a writer, I sensed a glaring gap for a project focused on women writers and their works. But I lacked the initiative to do something about it. In August 2014, I was invited by m:Wikimedia District of Columbia to Washington D.C. for some training. Attendees spoke about their interests and also what we wanted to do next within the Wikimedia movement. When it was my turn, I jabbered about a project focused on women writers... women who wrote secretly behind pen names... women printers, editors, publishers... women writers' organizations and their conferences. With the encouragement of and others who were sitting around that table, WPWW was launched! --Rosiestep (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Rosiestep! It's been wonderful to see the growth of these projects and the influence of your work. Thank you Keilana for a great workshop ― I haven't counted the number of editing events I've helped run since 2014, but it's been a bunch, and I really enjoy them. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Rosie, congrats on your great success, both with this project and WIR. I'm so proud to say that I was in the room when it happened, forgive the cheap Hamilton (musical) ref. That weekend was one of the highlights of my WP editing career and life in general because it's when I got to meet you and the others you mentioned. I too have run and helped run lots of editathons since, it further motivated and inspired me to work on some articles of my own, and it's partially the reason I got into grad school. I can't tell you how proud I am of you and of us all. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a pity many of the original members no longer appear on the current membership list but fortunately they can still be seen here. The eliminations seem to be a result of the workings of Project X, probably based on contributions to the main project page or to the talk page. I seldom contribute to these pages but frequently create articles about women writers. In reviewing new articles, I systematically try to include missing project banners and add assessments when necessary. From the start, it seemed to me that this was one of the most attractive wikiprojects. Much of the related activity is now triggered by Women in Red but the article count clearly shows that Women writers is continuing its success. As you say, Rosie, let's go for the next 60,000. We should reach that number by 2030 at the latest but should hit 100,000 a couple of years earlier.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

ELNEVER policy violations throughout the Harry Potter articles
See discussion and list here. (They have already been cleaned out of J. K. Rowling, where alternate sources can be found to be used in other articles.) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Alexandra Beliakova
I need help editing or submitting my draft.--Teeny0378 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

American Indian Youth Literature Awards / Waterstones Children's Book Prize
Hello, all -- I just came over from adding the 2022 results from the American Indian Youth Literature Awards and noticed there are a lot of WiR over there, some of which aren't linked at the moment (i.e., illustrators). You may also want to check out Waterstones Children's Book Prize. This would be a lovely place for some of you to jump in! Significa liberdade (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer! I've kicked it off with a stub for Meet Christopher: An Osage Indian Boy from Oklahoma. pburka (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and Lurline Wailana McGregor. pburka (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ... also Margaret Manuel and Jacqueline Guest. pburka (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Project scope
Hi there, can someone clarify the scope of this project for me, and its relationship to similar wikiprojects? I thought this was just for biography articles and now see that I was wrong, so I should certainly be using this tag more often. But I'm not sure what exactly qualifies as a "work" and if there are boundaries on "writer". For example: is a woman who writes propaganda posters a "writer"? What about a woman who is a lawyer, and writes hundreds and hundreds of pages of court documents? Is a newspaper run by, but not written by, a woman a "work" by a woman writer? "A woman who writes books" is reasonably unambiguous, but past that I'm less certain. And I'm not sure if articles should be tagged into Women, Women writers, Women's history, and Feminism at the same time, or if any one of these is supposed to be the "most specific" and chosen to the exclusion of the others.

For additional context, the articles I have in the pipes right now are on Russian political exiles in Geneva in the 1860s and 1870s, some of whom end up involved in the Paris Commune and can reasonably be described as feminists, and all of whom are involved with newspapers at some point. That... is a lot of related WPs. But I see that Mary Wollstonecraft is tagged with WP Feminism, Gender Studies, Women's History, and Women Writers (but not just "Women"), so maybe I am supposed to be tagging some of these articles to more than 10 wikiprojects? It seems excessive, but maybe that's not really a concern. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * And do academics and their writings count? eg, should I have tagged Patricia Monk for this project instead of the broader Women one? -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally I don't think there's much (if any!) cost of listing an article with a particular wikiproject, so while the benefits to listing an article as relevant to WP:WikiProject Women when it's already included in WP:WikiProject Women writers and WP:Women's history are probably minimal, it's also not going to harm anything.
 * As for when a person is specifically listed as relevant to WP:Women writers: the question I ask myself is basically "is this person's writing important as writing?" Lawyers write lots, but most lawyers' writings aren't fundamentally that important as pieces of writing.  Propogandists may count, if their propoganda is fundamentally writing: Leni Riefenstahl is unquestionably notable for her propaganda, but her propaganda is cinematic, so she is better placed under WP:Women artists (as is currently the case).  On the other hand, Go Ask Alice is a piece of literary propaganda written by a woman, and it is IMO within the scope of this project.
 * Regarding academics: some currently are and some are not classified under WP:Women writers, and to some extent the distinction is arbitrary. If an editor thinks that they fit under this project, I would be unlikely to object.  Looking at the women academics on my watchlist (who are broadly historians/archaeologists/classicists), all but two of twenty are classified as women writers; of the two exceptions one (Theresa Goell) never managed to publish the thing she spent much of her life working on.  The other, Eva Cantarella, I would consider at least as much a "woman writer" as several of the others on the list, and probably more so than e.g. Alice Kober, who is listed but who I would not have considered within scope.
 * Re. the specific example of Patricia Monk, I'd say she's definitely got a strong enough claim to be within scope that you could add her if you thought it appropriate. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My own rule of thumb for academics: if they've written (or perhaps edited) a standalone book, they're writers. If they've solely published journal articles I don't add them to writer projects and categories. Interestingly, all historians on Wikipedia are categorized as writers. pburka (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your question. Pretty much, I agree with most everything that mentions.
 * Regarding "...all of whom are involved with newspapers at some point ...", IMO, add the WPWW template to every woman's biography involved with print journalism (e.g., see ).
 * Regarding WikiProject Women vs. WikiProject Women's History: the scope of the former is for women born 1950 or later while the scope of the latter is for women born 1949 or earlier. I'm a Visiting Scholar at Northeastern University and my work focuses on pre-20th-century trans-Atlantic English language women writers, ergo, I regularly look at women's biographies tagged with WP Women's History + WPWW. Of course, there are other people with other niche interests, so adding multiple WikiProjects templates is appropriate. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the Print journalists category! Thanks for pointing that one out. -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

PMC Indigenous Literature Awards
Heads up! I wanted to let you all know I just created a page for the PMC Indigenous Literature Awards, which includes a number of Women in Red, including a large number of books without wiki pages. Significa liberdade (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Review R. E. Bradshaw
Hello, lovelies! I was wondering if someone more familiar with notability guidelines could hop over to check out the Wikipage for R. E. Bradshaw. Earlier today, I was notified that the page had been blanked and redirected (see WP:BLAR). The Wikipedian noted that the page did not meet notability guidelines and that all sources were primary. I undid the edit given that the author had been a finalist for four Lambda Literary Awards, and the page included secondary sources. I noted that the page should be tagged, not deleted. The user then tagged the page.

Given the number of inadequate pages on Wikipedia without any sourcing or without any notability given the text shown on Wikipedia, this feels obnoxious. Looking at the user's Talk page, it seems they have a history of blocking AfCs, moving articles to draft space, etc.

As such, I wanted to see if someone else could take a look at the page to review it and give another opinion on notability guidelines. Thanks!! Significa liberdade (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the relevant SNGs, but I don't think that any of the sources listed satisfy WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources; these secondary sources all seem to mention Bradshaw only in a list of nominees, which doesn't meet that bar. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked for other sources, so no opinion on whether Bradshaw does infacte meet GNG - it's just not obvious to me from the sources given in the article Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input! Significa liberdade (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Books with that many nominations are definitely getting reviews. Footnoting 2 reviews for each book would provide support for a WP:NAUTHOR pass. Passing NAUTHOR does not require GNG biographical coverage of her as a person as long as there is substantial sourcing about her works. It's obnoxious to have to go on the defensive for an article like this, but I'd search Kirkus and Publishers Weekly for reviews and just slap them on to the book titles. I'm sure there will be better reviews in other places too but Kirkus and PW are easy. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:LEvalyn. I'll look into this. Significa liberdade (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Featured Article Review for H.D.
I have nominated H.D. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Natalie Clifford Barney Featured article review
I have nominated Natalie Clifford Barney for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Hough (writer)
I recently created a draft for writer Lauren Hough. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for J. K. Rowling
There are three Featured Article Save Award nominations at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hazel Henderson, futurist writer
Futurist writer Hazel Henderson has died. The nomination for Recent Deaths expires in six hours. Any help in improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Original Stories from Real Life
I have nominated Original Stories from Real Life for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Featured Article Save Award for Natalie Clifford Barney
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Natalie Clifford Barney/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Nancy Reagan
I have nominated Nancy Reagan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Sarah Trimmer
I have nominated Sarah Trimmer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Original Stories from Real Life
It may be of interest to this project to learn that Original Stories from Real Life by Mary Wollstonecraft has been demoted from its status as a featured article. It seems to me it would not be difficult to incorporate the missing inline references which seem to have been the main problem. This would at least pave the way for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series Featured article review
I have nominated Religious debates over the Harry Potter series for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

FAR for Hillary Clinton
User:Buidhe has nominated Hillary Clinton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy 8 Year Anniversary
Happy 8 Year Anniversary, WikiProject Women writers! Established 30 August 2014. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group | adding data about diverse children’s books
Friday, September 2, 2022 at 10:00am PT / 1:00pm ET / 17:00 UTC / 7:00pm CEST

Late notice; sorry about that. This training may interest some of you: Wikidata:WikiProject LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group/Wikidata Working Hours#Upcoming Wikidata Working Hour. Topic: Diverse children's book metadata. Creating items for books (works and editions) in Wikidata. Rosiestep (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Help in a subtask: Women Electronic Literature Writers?
A group of about 5 (and growing) electronic literature writers would like to start a wikiproject/task group to address the serious gaps in wikipedia for women who have notably contributed to the electronic literature field. Most of us either teach elit or have been involved in the field for a long time. However, we are all very new at editing wikipedia. Could someone mentor us? Could we be a subtask? Thank you for any advice! LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for reaching out. Women Electronic Literature Writers? Sounds fantastic! Feel free to email me and we can sort out where we go from there. Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rosiestep How does one go about getting a task force element in the women writers talk page banner? I've found these very helpful for discovering wikiprojects, and I think they're also what is used to generate the Assessment and Clean-up tables? Since one of the project's aims is to make a list of the relevant articles in the first place, this could be very useful. -- asilvering (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Regarding the first question, not quite sure what you're asking. Can you provide an example of what you mean by "task force element in the women writers talk page banner"? As for the table, if you're referring to this (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Women writers), I think the steps would include creating a talkpage template for "Women Electronic Literature Writers" (see WikiProject Women writers/Templates, adding it to the applicable article talkpages, and asking someone (I'm not sure; I'd have to ask around) to develop the bot-generated table). P.S. I'm traveling through September 12, which may slow my responses in the next few days. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Good Article Editathon event in October 2022
 Hello WikiProject Women writers:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there! Goldsztajn (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Mary Martha Sherwood Featured article review
I have nominated Mary Martha Sherwood for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @SandyGeorgia and everyone, see my response at this article's FAR. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Gender bias in navboxes
I've been digging around, trying to understand the different factors which can lead to women being relatively underlinked. One factor I've noticed (though certainly not the only one!) is that on some pages navboxes contribute a large proportion of links. When these under-represent women, that can accentuate the situation. One example is the navbox Template:Romanticism, which was listing 249 (96%) men and only 11 (4%) women. I've left some suggestions for women who one might want to add to that particular navbox on the talk page there, but I was fairly out of my depth in considering Romanticism outside Britain. More generally, I suggest having a look at navboxes when you see them, and checking they don't have a male bias. Dsp13 (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Reassess Eliza Fenwick
I'm not really sure how we assess the importance of pages in this project, but I wonder if we should reconsider the assessment of Eliza Fenwick, which is currently "Low importance". Given the depth of sources (e.g. a 318 page book, "Mrs Eliza Fenwick and Her School for Girls in Barbados, 1814-1822" in the Journal of Caribbean History, "The (inoperative) epistolary community in Eliza Fenwick's Secresy" in European Romantic Review, "From Radical Feminist to Caribbean Slaveowner: Eliza Fenwick's Barbados Letters" in Eighteenth-Century Studies) I think this might be a "Mid importance" topic. pburka (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I also note that Dale Spender identified Fenwick as one of the Mothers of the Novel: 100 Good Women Writers Before Jane Austen. We should reassess everyone on that list. pburka (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, importance assessments are generally pretty arbitrary and done at the whim of a single editor; I think in general it's pretty safe to just boldly change article importance (particularly between low- and mid-importance) if you think it's not accurate. Guidance on what importance ratings are meant to denote is listed here.  (On the other hand, because importance ratings are pretty much arbitrarily done at the whim of a random editor, I wouldn't worry too much about what they actually are: they are a purely editor-facing thing and frankly I doubt most editors take much notice of them.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅. I've reclassified all of the authors included in Mothers of the Novel as mid-importance (at least all the ones with articles). A handful of them weren't tagged with the WPWW project at all, which I also fixed. pburka (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for H.D.
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/H.D./archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Indonesian women writers
See conversation at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. -- Rosiestep (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Help with reviewing
Hello everyone, I have submitted a Draft but no one is reviewing it. An admin left a comment that I have already fixed. Does it really take 3 months? Kindly help. Forgetwords (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you identified the draft in question. pburka (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anna_Pasternak Forgetwords (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Edna St. Vincent Millay help
Hi, I'm trying to improve Edna St. Vincent Millay's article to good article status, but the Works section needs some work (pun unintended). How should her Works section be written? What should be included? She also has a bibliography article (Edna St. Vincent Millay bibliography), which is listed as the main article in that section. Also, if anyone is familiar with her work (as I am not), that would be a major help. BappleBusiness[talk] 03:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Mary Martha Sherwood
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Mary Martha Sherwood/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Lessons for Children FAR
I have nominated Lessons for Children for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Session proposals for Wikimania 2023
Wikimania 2023 will convene this August in Singapore and online. Yesterday, the Wikimania Programs Committee (for transparency, I'm on it), announced a call for session proposals and I hope you consider drafting one! Submissions are accepted from Tuesday, February 28 until Tuesday, March 28, 2023. There are different session types, themes, and program tracks to consider. More info here: Have questions? Need help? Ping me. Thanks for your consideration. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * wikimania:2023:Program/Submissions
 * wikimania:2023:Program/Form Questions
 * wikimania:2023:Program/FAQ

Books by women writers?
Hallo, I've noticed the forthcoming "EveryBookItsReader campaign which aims to "improve and create content about books, literary works, and oral stories in Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikicommons, Wikiquotes, Wikibooks, and Wikisource" in April 2023. I suggested to WP:Women in Red that "Books by Women" might be a good topic for one of our April editathons, but it was pointed out that there isn't an easily available list of redlinked books. I just wondered whether this project or any of its members had any suggestions on where to find a list of notable red-linked (or plain absent) books by women writers? WiR's remit covers women's works as well as women, but it tends to focus on biographical articles or articles on women's organisations etc. Any thoughts? Pam D  18:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Great question,, and sounds like an interesting campaign, but I don't know of such a list. Hoping others chime in. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't we start putting one together? For a start, there's an interesting list of 365 books from the New York Public Library. Can't we start by running through this to develop not only a list of missing books but also of missing women authors? Then there are lists by publishers, such as the one from Penguin. We could also call on some of our librarian colleagues from Women in Red to help us compile a list. Shouldn't be too difficult. Anyone interested?--Ipigott (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, and I could certainly add a lot of 18thC and 19thC works to the list -- there are some very surprising absences. I'm not sure where best to "place" the list within wiki infrastructure, but if someone tagged me in to it I could contribute a number of titles. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's been quite an extensive discussion on this on the Women in Red Ideas page.--Ipigott (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

FAR for Mary: A Fiction
I have nominated Mary: A Fiction for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Jane Speed
I was surprised to see the extensive, detailed, article at Jane Speed draftified by User:Onel5969 to Draft:Jane Speed. But digging deeper, I see there's a history, and a decade-old AFD at Articles for deletion/Jane Speed (though I don't know how the two articles compare). Also there are apparently WP:Conflict of interest of issues, given the article was created (re-created?) by User:DavidESpeed. Authors are really outside of my Wikipedia editing proficiency. What does the rest of this group think? Is the article sufficient, does it just need improving, or is it not going to get by? Nfitz (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Nfitz, thank you so much for calling attention to this. I'm actually encouraged to see that this action caught anyone's eye—esp. someone who wasn't even directly connected to either incarnation of the article, nor to the original version's deletion. And yes, I am indeed the son of the late Jane Speed. Moreover, I created both versions: i.e. the horribly botched, rightfully deleted 2012 travesty—whose 'sources' consist of little more than the memorial bio penned by my late father, plus an assortment of Flickr-housed scanned documents and private correspondence—and what, at least until today, I deemed its substantially reorganized, considerably more detailed and thoroughly sourced reboot. As such, I was utterly taken aback and, frankly, bewildered (although, in retrospect, also frustrated with myself for not having thought to include some kind of explanatory talk page entry that might have prevented this). Just for the record, a few days prior to publishing, as per WP's instructions, I had left a message with one of the few currently active Wikipedians who had voted to delete the original article, requesting his critique of the latest draft. Three days later, having not yet received a reply, I reexamined the argument my message had posited, citing both WP:GNG—esp. the notion that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"— and WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and—failing to see how anyone who bothered to read the article could possibly object—went ahead and published. A day later, I did finally get that response, which, while gracious and genial, was a tad vague: "DavidESpeed, great to hear from you.  A DECADE, wow!  I see its in mainspace now, i'll keep an eye on it," which, esp. in the absence of any subsequent messages, I soon came to regard as a tacit thumbs-up. (I have just now posted another, somewhat more urgently worded request, citng today's development; we'll see what happens.) Anyway, now that I've provided that original version as a frame of reference, I would love to get your feedback, as well as that of others more specifically author-attuned. Thanks again. DavidESpeed (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally - the same editor draftified 2023–24 Serie A and other articles recently - with unanimous rejection. My first take is that it looks notable to me - but we really need editors with proper experience in this area to weigh in. If the article is substantially different from the previous AFD, it should probably go to AFD rather than draftifications; but there's no rush, and best wait to see how these discussions go. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nfitz, I really appreciate the words of encouragement, but I think it was more a matter of being puzzled and frustrated—or, more to the point, woefully ill-equipped to make 'improvements' based on what seems a pretty generic notification sent to me by this editor, coupled with his/her failure to respond to my subsequent request for clarification. The notification itself states that the article "is not suitable as written to remain published. Aside from questionable notability, it appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia)." That last sentence, in particular, gives the impression of one who—having read neither the 2012 nor the 2023 version, but believing them to be identical—simply draws his/her talking points from the original AfD. Which also leads me to another point: Regarding your own, as-yet-unrevised acknowledgment of not "know[ing] how the two articles compare," it occurs to me that my initial attempt to answer that implied question was likely camouflaged by my customary long-windedness. Just in case, here's the bare url to that deleted 2012 version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DavidESpeed/sandbox&oldid=521465957. If and when you get around to it, your updated impression/comparison would be most welcome. (BTW, one relevant news flash regarding said comparison: Early next month, Ryan Ellett—author of, among other works, The Encyclopedia of Radio Drama and Comedy Writers, 1928 – 1962—will begin work on an article devoted to Jane Speed's life and career, which he hopes to have finished in time to appear in The Old Radio Times in late June.

Citations for Books
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious about the general consensus about including citations for books. Specifically, I see a lot of pages where users have included a list of publications by an author, then after each book, they include a citation for that book. I also see citations for books following the first sentence that just says the book title, author's name, and year of publication. That is, they'll cite the book itself to prove that's the title, author, and year of publication for the book.

To me, this seems like a silly use of citations. It unnecessarily adds a lot of primary sources to the article, which increases the article's rating but not its quality. Thoughts? Significa liberdade (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. Citing a book to itself serves no purpose. However I do like to use citation templates (without ref tags) in Publications sections to keep everything consistent. pburka (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Requested move at Talk:Kyle Spencer
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kyle Spencer that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman
User:Buidhe has nominated Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Article outlines for authors?
Hi, all -- I'm curious if there are specific outlines for creating a page for an author. I know there's the template, which provides a general outline of how a page should generally be structured. Is there something similar for authors? Or at least agreed upon headings and order for common information? For example, I often see "Early life and education" at the top of the article, followed by information about career, then Personal life, then a list of publications, though this order and the headings vary. Is there an agreed-upon standard? What is it? I've spent some time looking for an outline across various WikiProjects and haven't found anything. Significa liberdade (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . It's a good question. I don't think I've seen an agreed-upon standard. I commonly follow this pattern: Early life and education; Career; Personal life; Awards; Selected works. For shorter Start-class articles, I may condense the headers: Biography; Awards; Selected works. I'm curious about what routines are followed by other editors, and if there's a desire to standardize within this WikiProject. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that's a pretty good basic pattern, at least for modern writers who are solely or primarily notable as writers. I would suggest though that "Awards" should if possible be part of a broader Reception or Legacy section, which would also include e.g. people influenced by this person, their place in the evolution of their genre, public opinion, and so forth.
 * That sort of organisation breaks down for historic figures and for people who are notable for their activities in several fields, though. For ancient women writers you are lucky if you can justify individual sections on Life, Writings, and Reception: there'sp not enough known about their lives to have Early Life or Personal Life as distinct headings, and "Selected Works" doesn't make much sense when 100 lines of poetry is a substantial surviving corpus! (Sappho is the exception as the subject of an order of magnitude more scholarship than any ancient woman with the possible exception of Cleopatra, but even though there's plenty to write about her it wouldn't make sense to try to cram it into a standard layout suitable for modern authors...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to follow a similar outline, though I regularly combine "Early life and education" and "Personal life," especially since it's difficult to know sometimes where one ends and the other begins. For example, if someone has epilepsy and was diagnosed in childhood, though it affects their writing and life, is that "early life" or "personal life"? Also, it seems odd to me a lot of the time to separate early from personal with a huge chunk of other stuff (e.g., career) in the middle. Significa liberdade (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Harriet Arbuthnot
I have nominated Harriet Arbuthnot for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Carol Sklenicka
Would someone from WPWW mind taking a look at Carol Sklenicka? The subject of the article most likely is Wikipedia notable per WP:NAUTHOR, but article might slowly be morphing into an article more about two of her books than about her as a person. My assumption is based entirely on a comment made in this discussion with a recent contributor to the article. If the books themselves are notable per WP:NBOOK, then perhaps articles about each of them could be created. There's also seems to be quite a bit of WP:PUFFERY and other WP:WTW being used throughout the article, and some of the sources might need a little reassessing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2023 at Women In Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

"The Welfare Effect of Gender-Inclusive Intellectual Property Creation: Evidence from Books"
This article may interest some of you, the first two sentences in the Abstract being:— ""Women have traditionally participated in intellectual property creation at depressed rates relative to men. Book authorship is now an exception."" --Rosiestep (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Brooke Jackson-Glidden
New article: Brooke Jackson-Glidden. Improvements welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Zora Neale Hurston
A female writer with a strong voice that I was surprised not to see listed is Zora Neale Hurston. Her literature and voice is so rich. I feel like this is a key piece of content missing from the umbrella of women's literature.

Okrowe (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Kate Clanchy, Monisha Rajesh, Sunny Singh (writer), Chimene Suleyman
My head is spinning as I try to watch a WP:SPA editor (former student of Clanchy, and has done a PhD covering the area - see her talk page) working busily on all four articles, expanding the sections about a controversy. I'm not sure to what extent individual Tweets should be being cited and quoted, and whether the current articles are WP:NPOV or not. More eyes would be welcome. Thanks. Pam D  09:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Divya Dwivedi has an RfC
Divya Dwivedi, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Brittany Spanos
Please see Draft:Brittany Spanos, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. (The article was AfD'd for notability concerns, and has now landed in draftspace.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Clare Winger Harris
Clare Winger Harris has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster  (chat!)  12:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red: Help and Translate Ruth Baza Author from Wikipedia (es and fr)
I would like to ask for help from a more pro editor and / or contribute this time by translating (making some modifications and adjustments) the Wikipedia page (actually in Spanish and French) of Spanish born author, photographer and former journalist Ruth Baza, who is also on the news worldwide for a couple of months, due to a dramatic event she lived in the act of service as one of the youngest and more respected former correspondent, aged 23, ill but strong and determined, in 1995, with a celebrity in Paris after interviewing this man for one of the most important film mags of Spain, Cinemania. According to WOMEN PRESS FREEDOM and The Coalition of Women in Journalism: "Ruth Baza has bravely come forward with her allegations against Gérard Depardieu. Her courage in speaking out about a rape that allegedly occurred nearly 30 years ago is not only commendable but also essential in the ongoing fight against sexual violence and the culture of silence in the media and entertainment industries. We believe that Ruth Baza's decision to file a criminal complaint, despite the significant passage of time and the legal hurdles, is an important step towards achieving justice, not just for herself but for all survivors of sexual assault who have felt powerless against influential figures. By coming forward, Baza has reignited critical conversations about sexism within the film industry, particularly in France, where recent reports have shed light on deeply ingrained misogynistic attitudes." This is an important step, a social and political storm in France and the Film Industry. Her career is very interesting as she belongs to the Generation X as author of a book that marked a generation, several stories, her unique way of writing ancd making interviews to personalities worldwide, and also her work as a photographer (mostly rock and grunge icons), who exhibited last year in Chicago with the best female music photographers of the world courtesy of Courtney Love, and more. I will probably need help.... Or if any of you, editors want to translate it or make your own version based on the existing pages and the hundreds references, I will be pleased to help as I have done and do when I have time to improve pages as an amateur editor, on people of interest who has worked hard to achieve great things, a Cultural legacy that can´t be lost, History. Thank you in advance for your time and help! More courageous smart women who dare to speak loud on such awful events with all the consequences, and who devote and advocate for Culture, Art, Knowledge, Equality and Freedom of Speech are needed to be known. Sylvie Siminovich (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Since works are within scope, are characters as well?
Pardon the question—I just wanted to double check about the scope of this project. Since works by women writers are considered within scope on the project page, are characters created/depicted by women writers also within scope? I've gained some interest in literary characters as a topic area, including ones by women writers (e. g. I'd like to draft an article about Frances Hodgson Burnett's Sara Crewe, as a character appearing across multiple works). Would it be appropriate to add the project tag to such character articles? Thanks for bearing with my question. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk &#124; edits) 10:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

J.K.Rowling
I have nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging