Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 107

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 105Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110

Afghanistan women secretly meeting to write poetry

Hi all, I'm drafting User:Eddie891/Mirman Baheer-- its not a super widely covered topic, but I think there might be enough, not sure. Thoughts? can anyone find anything further? Eddie891 Talk Work 14:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Really interesting, thanks for creating it! Not sure if you've seen this, but another one is ProQuest 1786820629 from Southasia Magazine. DanCherek (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I searched on JSTOR, the group is mentioned a few times in this article by Poetry (magazine) although it doesn't go into much depth. Also mentioned in this book but my institution doesn't have access to it so I'm not sure if how much detail it goes into. Suonii180 (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I am the beggar of the world has a few tidbits about it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I also found The 22 syllables that can get you killed (Eliza Griswold, BBC, Nov. 2016); Love, rage and silence: The secret lives of Afghanistan's female poets (AFP/Dawn, Feb. 2016); Dangerous 'truth': The Kabul women's poetry club (Lyse Doucet, BBC News, Oct. 2013); Afghan women write powerful poetry – even amid war (Leigh Cuen, CS Monitor, Jul. 2013); The Poetry of Afghanistan's Women (Seamus Murphy and Eliza Griswold, Pulitzer Center, Jun. 2012). Beccaynr (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

International Women's Day March 8th

So I asked on Did you know about doing a set of hooks for International Women's Day on March 8th. It turns out that if you have been paying attention or do sensible things like checking the archives, they have actually been doing this every year, but with less than a full set sometimes as they don't always have enough nominations. So it seems a more coordinated approach might be useful for maximising the number of women on the front page for that day.

(For those who are not familiar with it, "Did you know" (DYK) is a section on the front page of Wikipedia that displays a short interesting or quirky fact from a series of articles.)

I wondered if interested WiR editors would keep in mind the date, and work together to get enough nominations? Articles can be bios, women's organisations, anything you think pertains to International Women's Day. Each "set" of Did you knows contains eight hooks (which can contain facts from one or more articles). When there are a lot of article nominations each set lasts 12 hours, and when there are fewer they run for 24 hours, so we need 8–16 hooks, with images for 1–2 of those.

To be eligible for nomination for DYK, an article must have been created OR expanded 5x in the previous seven days. However we've been given permission to start nominating our articles from 8th January, meaning we can nominate any article made eligible from 1st January onwards. Articles can be nominated by the person that wrote them, or anyone else. If you have never nominated an article for DYK before, then you get five "free" nominations. After that, you have to do a Qid Pro Quo ("QPQ") for each nomination you make, which means reviewing one other DYK nomination.

I have some experience with DYK, and I am sure there are a bunch of editors here with much more, so if anyone has a likely article they'd like to see on the front page but is unsure how to go about it, I'm happy to help. What do people think?

(Side note: it would be great to get a relevant Featured Article on the 8th too, but I haven't ever involved myself in that project, anyone else?) - DrThneed (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I would also be happy to help with the DYK hooks, I've had probably around 100 promoted and I've built the sets for the MP a fair amount, if people would rather share ideas on that. I have reviewed at FA, but I think any involvement there is probably unnecessary - they'll be on it already and tend to plan well in advance. I would also like to point out that articles that have been promoted to GA are also eligible for DYK, so if you want GAN reviews done in the right time frame, that project would probably be willing to help. Kingsif (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, DrThneed, for this encouragement and for describing the DYK process so clearly. Thanks also to Kingsif for such active assistance. We've been doing particularly well with articles about women on DYK so far this month with an average of over two per day. It all helps to increase wider appreciation of women's contributions to our history and to our evolving world.--Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a great reminder all - I'll make an extra effort to submit some in the new year! Lajmmoore (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. And yes, thank you Kingsiffor the reminder that GAs can be DYK too, I forget that. I'll work up some QPQs myself so I can do some nominating, and keep in mind an article or two to nominate. And then I'll come back here at the start of January to remind everyone it's happening. I'll raise the subject in GA too if noone has already (I have never ventured over there, it's probably about time!). DrThneed (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Kayt Jones

Hiya, Kayt Jones is a fashion photographer who would seem to be notable but sadly significant coverage on her is hard to find. There's a reasoned debate going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayt Jones in case anyone has any decent sources to throw in. I had a go but couldn't find much ... Mujinga (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Apolo1991. I looked at your link and discovered responses are restricted to those who are resident in the United States. This seems to me to be a restriction which could well distort any findings.--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, I'm looking to Apolo1991 to clarify but I suspect that the US-based IRB in this instance only has a national-level remit, ergo why the study is limited to US residents. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, Rosiestep Hi all, yes you should be resident in the US, as IRB has only a national-level remit. Apolo1991 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Apolo1991 please could you update your other requests to include "if you are resident in the United States" to avoid ineligible editors who have not heard of the IRB wasting their time by clicking on the link. TSventon (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can see from here that there is strong emphasis on American Public History and the American institutions involved. This should have been made clear here and in all the similar messages which have been addressed to individual editors and wikiprojects. Pity as it would have been interesting to have research undertaken on the significant bias against women historians and the general lack of coverage of women in history. In connection with Wikipedia, see for example History has a massive gender bias. We’ll settle for fixing Wikipedia. --Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

bell hooks

bell hooks has died and the entry needs a lot of work to be featured at ITNRD—unfortunately the long sections on her books are entirely OR (seems to be result of WikiEd assignment). Help gratefully received! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

WMF Diversity, equity, and inclusion research

Bridges2Information brought my attention to this fascinating bit of WMF research: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Research/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion_research/United_States_-_2021#Would_be_very/fairly_interested_in_editing_Wikipedia_articles Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

Lots of implications for WIR's work in the biographies section. We have shockingly low proportional representation of Asian and Hispanic women. And lots of cringey language choices. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yikes.
Appreciate WMF doing that research. An idea off the top of my head: we have done a gender studies editathon. An ethnic studies editathon would get a number of Asian and Hispanic women who meet NPROF. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Whereas I'm sure there are all sorts of diversity & language issues on WD, I'm hugely unconvinced by this report. Referring to the biographies section, the second chart "Number of Biographies" does not comport with WiR's headline 19% women bios stat. The report seems to think there's, roughly, gender parity. That immediately calls into question any info we get from the chart. We do not know how article subjects have been assigned to the race/ethnicities studied. We're given absolute values, not values relative to population. All that's before we get to the next two tables, which could be indicitive of issues or could be some sort of shroud-wavey concern trolling. What, exactly, is the incidence of word 'crush' in biogs. It's not a word I come across much on WP. Why, exactly; or how, did each word come to be chosen? Do we expect to see 'motherhood' more frequently on pages on male subjects? And though I may be missing something, what are we to make of the cottage-white association, or the conversion-black? For the latter, are we dealing with religionists or rugby players? It's hard to know. Hard to know what is the purpose of any of the info in this section of the report. Frankly, half-baked, half-assed, woefully lacking in the minimal rigour one would hope to see in a WMF - or any - report. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
"the second chart "Number of Biographies" does not comport with WiR's headline 19% women bios stat." That’s because this report is focused on US bios (and US editors). Innisfree987 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
According to Humaniki, 20.017% of US citizen subject articles are for women. The report suggests roughly 50/50. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The biographies are chosen based on a "set of pre-agreed topic areas." That's absolutely affecting the results. Why they don't list the pre-agreed topic areas, or explain why they were used in the first place, I have no idea. Not even a guess. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
They invite questions at m:Talk:Communications. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
No one has edited the above site since May 2020. It would be more useful if we could contact those who have been involved in defining the study and commissioning BAMM to carry out the research. Those at WMF who might be able to respond are RArville (WMF), CPalanca (WMF) and Awjrichards (WMF). The only person listed under Talent and Culture who appears to be an active editor is Delphine (WMF). Perhaps she can invite the others to look at this discussion. I have tried to find some background on how the study was defined but without success.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I think perhaps GVarnum-WMF will be able to shed more light on this as he prepared the WMF page. Perhaps we can be given links to a more complete report and to the preparatory work which led to the selection of BAMM as the main contractor.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why they ask people to engage on the general m:Talk:Communications page when our custom is usually to ask directly on the Talk page of such reports. I'd encourage folks to keep the questions and conversation in the right context and post directly to m:Talk:Communications/Research/Diversity, equity, and inclusion research/United States - 2021. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense, Fuzheado. Just in case some editors prefer to continue the discussion here , I added a link on Meta to this convo so there's an awareness that it's happening. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Tagishsimon above, but surely this is just a summary, perhaps not well done, of the full research. There seems to be no link to the full report - why not? Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Study on gender differences in readership

In connection with the above, I have just come across another interesting WMF-funded study published in July 2020 on Global gender differences in Wikipedia readership. It's not too clear how the readers were selected but some of the general trends observed are interesting although not surprising.--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Plans for 2022

We have been discussing planning for 2022 on our Ideas page. It has been suggested that we should discontinue month-by-month events, opting instead for quarterly priorities given the time taken to prepare the event pages. As for me, I would prefer to continue with the existing system of new priorities each month and would be happy to handle the necessary preparations as I did for our first few years.

The other item under discussion is whether we should plan geofocus on the United States and Canada over the next five or six quarters or whether we should go for geofocus on the U.S. territories in January, Canada in February and the whole of the United States in March, leaving the remainder of the year open to other priorities.

It would be useful to have your reactions on these two items fairly soon in order to avoid confusion as we move into 2022.--Ipigott (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I enjoy the monthly challenges, though have suggested that rather than the "May Marie's" etc we should divide up the alphabet and have a target surname or given name range for each month, perhaps on a 24 month cycle, to replace the bias towards names of European origin. As for the United States: tbh I tend to avoid writing about Americans as far as I can on the grounds that they're not under-represented, and there are plenty of US editors to continue creating US articles. More than a year focussed on US and Canada? It doesn't appeal to me. PamD 12:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I also don't have much appetite to write about Americans for the next year, but I appreciate that it could mean less administrative overhead. The thematic collections of people is interesting, but geography is so open that I'd have trouble knowing where to start - so if we can, I'd like to limit it in time, or to areas particularly underrepresented. But ultimately, I don't write much during these events, so either way it goes, I'm sure it's fine. Now if only there is a way to somehow include Greenland in an event about territories - there is a lot missing :) Urve (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of a focus on women from territories including the U.S. (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands), Canada (Northwest Territories, Yukon, Nunavut), and Greenland. Not sure how long this geofocus would be. TJMSmith (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I like the monthly mix of themes; I've appreciated having continents to focus on long-term - but as with others I would be hesitant about having North America as a geo-focus for a whole year. Taking Urve's point about Greenland, perhaps there's some potential in having regions of dependent territories as monthly themes - starting with US ones as has already been suggested. If that were to happen, I think we should crowd-source some lists, as the Wikidata ones aren't very long, or reliable. Geo-focus aside, there's lots of suggestions on the ideas page - it would be really useful if people had time to take a look and say if there's any preferences Lajmmoore (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Africa. I much prefer also working on places which are not likely to be covered, as opposed to the UK/US and I have always enjoyed a month-long focus, as it gives new ideas for finding women in careers/environments I might not have otherwise explored. But truth be told, I will still be focusing on women's nationality, so my view properly should not carry much weight. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    You have your focus and you are doing a fantastic job and accomplishing amazing things, Susun. Still, your opinion is respected and it's just as valid as the next. --ARoseWolf 17:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Geofocus for 2022

Building on the January focus of US territories, I wondered whether we should extend that further in other months and include countries partially recognised by the UN, autonomous regions, disputed territories etc.? e.g. February - China: Macau, Hong Kong, Tibet, East Turkestan, etc.

March - Netherlands: Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, etc.
April - France: French Guyana, Guadaloupe, etc.
May - UK: British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, etc.
June - Partially recognised by the UN e.g Kosovo
July - Denmark: Greenland
August - Territories from Africa
then perhaps the rest of the months could build on [Women from Where] e.g. Palestine
& by Dec - focus on MarioGom's gender imbalance list

What do people think? We have some red-lists, or lists in previous events already which could be adapted. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a month for overseas and dependent territories would be interesting. This is geographically interesting, and it often overlaps with underrepresented regions. I wouldn't do one for active separatist movements, as this would be a political stance that I don't think we should be doing as a WikiProject. MarioGom (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This sounds nice. I don't have any issues with separatism. Just a comment: The Greenland list is missing quite a bit of earlier politicians, so I will add more when I'm available. (It's generated by Wikidata, so I'd have to learn.) Denmark can include the Faroe Islands, which we have a list for. Urve (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Just when I thought you were getting a bit fed up with work on geofocus, Lajmmoore, here you are back again with a batch of interesting new ideas. I'm all for it. Like MarioGom, I don't think we should become involved in politically sensitive territories. I therefore suggest we should begin in February with Hong Kong and Macau.--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Elfrida von Nardroff

Elfrida von Nardroff, the contestant who won the most money on the 1950s game show Twenty-One, recently died. Her NY Times obit is here: [1] Thriley (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata and missing nurse duplicates

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Nurses. There are two entries, one below the other, for the same woman: Letitia Mumford Geer. Same person, but these two entries have two different Wikidata numbers. Anyone here who is active on Wikidata and can take care of that end of the duplication?

Also, Maud H. Mellish-Wilson. I know who this is, and she is usually listed as simple Maud Mellish Wilson."No. 2751: Mrs. Wilson of the Mayo Clinic". University of Houston. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

Louise Dietrich article is created with Wikidata number Q102046829. The missing article listing has her redlink name of A. Louise Dietrich with Wikidata number Q84997334.

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Those merges have been done. I have just merged Angelica Ferreira with Angélica Ferreira and Rosemary Aseidua and Rosemarry Aseidua and am continuing to search for more dups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oronsay (talk • contribs)
Thanks for the help. I did a visual scroll through the United States WIR Missing articles listings, but did not check the non-US listings. — Maile (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth P. Ossoff: Looking for sources

Elizabeth P. Ossoff is a social psychologist and a professor emeritus at Saint Anselm College. She is frequently cited in newspapers as an expert in political communication and behavior but I wasn't finding much significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) or indicators that she meets WP:PROF. I was curious if anyone else could find more. TJMSmith (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked through Newspapers.com and ProQuest and couldn't find anything of use. Plenty of quotes from the professor, but just quotes from them on various subjects. Nothing about them directly in any detail. SilverserenC 19:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
With a single-digit h-index in Google Scholar she's unlikely to pass WP:PROF, at least for criterion C1, and I didn't see any book publications that might lead to notability through WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing article Esmée van Eeghen translated from nl:Esmée van Eeghen

I noticed this missing article and went ahead and translated it from the Dutch. Just letting y'all know in case any of you are particularly interested in this subject. I'm not good enough at Dutch to read the sources and find citations, which still needs to be done, or English sources found. Have at it! Skyerise (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of hits on Google Books that are in English. See here:[2] Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Lots = 5? Skyerise (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Make that four. One merely cited, in a footnote, a book in Dutch with her name in the title. Skyerise (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been working on Draft:Susie Sutton with FloridaArmy and I've found a photo of Sutton in this issue of Billboard, the bottom, far left image. I want to clip out that picture of her, but I'm not clear of the copyright considerations for this. Anyone have any insights to impart? SilverserenC 00:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: It's public domain, and can be clipped and uploaded to Commons with no restrictions. On the second screen of the Upload Wizard, choose "This file is not my own work", expand "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA", and then "First published in the United States before 1926". Nick Number (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Snuck by there with only a few years to spare on the copyright expiration, huh? Works for me! Thanks! SilverserenC 01:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Pioneer women notable for only one event?

Interested in what project members think of articles on women who were pioneers in a particular subject being covered "People notable for only one event". I've not encountered this particular deletion rationale before, and it's a bit depressing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems like it risks introducing considerable bias. 1E is not inherently exclusionary; it goes either toward inclusion or exclusion based on significant of the one event. So to put it bluntly: if one doesn’t think women’s pioneering achievements are significant… Innisfree987 (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that's a misinterpretation. The idea behind 1E is determining if someone's notability and all of what is known about them entirely relates to one thing that, itself, warrants an article and can be completely contained in one article. Depending on what one pioneered, it is functionally impossible for a single article to be written on an event that covers them - unless it's, e.g. "Advances made by PERSON", at which point it's just a backwards way of writing a bio. Maybe, if someone is known for inventing a thing, that thing will have an article - but then, if there is some notability to the rest of the inventor's life, would the biographical details be DUE at the thing's article? If they are known for discovering a new wilderness trail, will any detail besides how they found it be relevant at such an article? No, but clearly they are a notable person and there are notable details of them that should be collected in the encyclopedia of all human knowledge. If we do only know details of someone that are about them doing the one thing they did, to create a bio would be to create a content fork, but any extra information shows that history already has them down as a person it was good to know about outside of their contribution to the thing. Sometimes, 1E is grounds for deletion. Often, it shows us how better to cover people who are primarily known for one thing. Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Unless I’m just mistaken, I think that only applies to BLPs. Trillfendi (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
BIO1E applies to all bios. Pioneers would be excluded under this if the coverage of the person is restricted in scope to just their role in the event and/or the event is not significant enough to have received extended coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Do you have an example handy? This strikes me as the sort of thing someone who isn't a subject-matter expert might put on a bio in reasonably good faith when the article doesn't adequately express why the pioneering was important. So, the sort of thing WiR editors could easily patch up. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Asilvering: It's at AfD; not sure it is politic to link it here directly as I worry about canvassing if I call out the WiR brigades too often, but it's been indexed for the Women's deletion sorting listing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Reproductive History of Black Women

Can somebody have a look at this as well please. I started working on the references, but it unravelled very quickly and I had to revert. I plan to try and find more references over the Christmas period to get it out of draft. scope_creepTalk 19:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ooof. This needs a real language overhaul too. But I think most of this can be pulled from already-extant articles actually - so maybe not so hard to clean up as it looks? I'll poke at it a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Asilvering@Scope creep Depending on how far back the article reaches there may be some good content and/or sources at Disability in American slavery and Slave health on plantations in the United States. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
As it is, the title would need to be "Reproductive history of black women in the United States". Nothing at all to say about Africa it seems! Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Yip. I think it needs a full-sized academic article on the subject. I submitted it, expecting it to pass without doing the work to update it properly. I didn't think anything about it. When it failed, I looked at several papers on the subject, covering many aspects of it. I think what is there is a section at best. There is lots of research on the subject. I'll add to my todo list, but it will be two-three years before I get around it, although it is not really my bag. It is an important subject and should be created sooner. scope_creepTalk 13:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The Clarion

This is the title of a newspaper that was founded by Carrie Best. An IP editor on the talk page made an article request for it, so I thought posting here might give more visibility to someone who might be interested in writing the article. If an article is written, it would need to be distingushed from The Clarion which is an unrelated socialist British newspaper (I don't think the redlink for The Clarion (newspaper) that's currently in the Best article would work because they're both newspapers). I'm thinking that offline sources would likely be more detailed and substantial compared to what I've been able to find online so far, so it would be great if someone had access to sources like that. Or if I'm looking in the wrong places, just finding better online sources. Clovermoss (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Ruth Fitzmayer Schwarz

Does anyone here have subscription access to ancestry.com or newspaperarchive.com?

She is the oldest outstanding redlink at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships#Fellows of the American Physical Society (name misspelled there) but I can't find much else about her on the public web than the fellowship itself so if these articles could be retrieved I think it would be very helpful in constructing an article. I can sort of read the text of the newspaperarchive story through the html source of the page but for the ancestry one only the headline is legible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you see on the "html source" of the newspaperarchive story, but here's a clipping of that story that you should be able to enlarge manually on your end. — Maile (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC) https://www.newspapers.com/clip/91248187/ruth-f-schwarz-79-physicist/
If you are not able to read this, below is the entire text provided through The Wikipedia Library access to Proquest:

Ruth Fitzmayer Schwarz, 79, of Abington, a physicist and violinist, died of sepsis Aug. 26 at Abington Memorial Hospital.

In 1952, Dr. Schwarz joined Philco Corp. in Philadelphia when transistors were just beginning to be adapted to computers. She was part of a team of scientists who helped Philco become a leader in the transistor field. Her first successful assignment, her son Timothy said, was to develop a formula for heat flow that was critical in the manufacturing process.

After her children were born, Dr. Schwarz cut back her hours at Philco to two days a week in the company's laboratory in Blue Bell. In 1963, she told a reporter that when she was home, she would sometimes jot down a solution to a problem she and other researchers had been discussing in the laboratory. She was a recipient of Philco's Presidential Special Award.

In the 1970s, Dr. Schwarz was a consulting scientist for the General Electric Space Division in Valley Forge. She was the author of more than a dozen scientific papers and received several patents in the semiconductor field.

A native of Louisville, Ky., Dr. Schwarz was president of the student body at Atherton High School and played violin in the school's orchestra. She planned to major in political science at the University of Louisville until a freshman trigonometry course spiked her interest in math and science.

She met her future husband, John Schwarz, in college. After earning bachelor's degrees, they both attended graduate school at Harvard. They married in 1950.

Her adviser at Harvard for her doctoral thesis on molecular magnetism, her son said, was J.H. Van Vleck, who would go on to receive a Nobel Prize in physics.

Timothy Schwarz said his mother helped him with his math and science homework in high school. "I took physics," he said, "to keep up my grade-point average."

For 29 years, Dr. Schwarz was a violinist with the Old York Road Symphony and also played with the Abington Chamber Orchestra. She was a deacon and an elder at Abington Presbyterian Church.

In addition to her husband and son, she is survived by another son, Scott; a daughter, Linda Bierema; a sister; and three grandchildren.

A memorial service will be at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow at Abington Presbyterian Church, Old York and Susquehanna Roads, Abington.

Contact staff writer Sally A. Downey at 215-854-2913 or sdowney@phillynews.com.

Credit: By Sally A. Downey INQUIRER STAFF WRITER Illustration

Ruth F. Schwarz Word count: 405

Copyright Philadelphia Media Network (Newspapers) LLC Sep 4, 2004

I clipped out the second one for you, David Eppstein. See here: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/91249404/science-doesnt-faze-this-female/ SilverserenC 19:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I did a full deep dive and found some more things for you, David Eppstein.
Mom of Two Called Rare Physics Genius
Dr. Schwarz Mixes Physics With Housework
Varied backgrounds blend in symphony
There's probably more than just that, since there's a number of potential variations of her name and I only looked into the one. Hope it helps! SilverserenC 19:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Even more thanks! Yes, I was at a dead end with the physics fellowship until I realized that it misspelled her name as Schwartz. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm getting flashbacks to Lou Swarz and the 20 different variations of her names. Makes biographical research so much more complicated. SilverserenC 20:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Fwiw this on FamilySearch has a birth date of 12 July 1925, which matches the Find a Grave entry. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Now up at Ruth Fitzmayer Schwarz. Again, thanks for all the help. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Judith Balcazar at AfD

There's an AN discussion ongoing about prolific AfC reviewer Luciapop which has resulted in many of their articles being taken to AfD. Some do seem likely to be promotional in intent but others might be notable. I was particularly concerned about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Balcazar -- on the designer of the washable female incontinence aid Giggleknickers, which I'd definitely heard of before now; also a BBC 100 Women award winner. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Lot more than just that one, check the talk page at User talk:Luciapop. Basically nominating every article they ever made and using WP:UPE as the deletion argument, with seemingly little to no effort put in to check notability of the subjects in question by the nominators. SilverserenC 04:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't really understand the drive to delete work on notable topics because of (alleged) editor behaviour issues; it's very off-putting. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(And if anyone wants to help out with other articles, there's also the male biographies of Khamis Chuwal Lom, Saeed Lom, and Ikenna Ikeme) SilverserenC 05:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Just saw that the Victory Obasi AfD is a multi-Afd nomination. Most of the rest are male biographies, but there is also Adeaga Bukunmi. SilverserenC 05:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed up Iseoluwa Abidemi, but I don't think I have the energy to improve all of these articles. SilverserenC 06:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Great job on Abidemi. I found some sources on Victory Obasi ([3][4][5]) and Adeaga Bukunmi ([6][7][8]). There are other sources on Google, but those were the most reliable looking ones I found so far. TJMSmith (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

G5 CSD rears its head again

Literally during the AfD, an admin has gone and deleted a bunch of the articles in the Victory Obasi multi-AfD. And then basically posted that they did so there in the AfD, as if that's an argument for deletion or some nonsense? Again showing why G5 is an utterly worthless CSD category. SilverserenC 18:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You could try the new forum Wikipedia:Administrative action review. I don't know whether it will help or come over as forum shopping.
Or someone could start an RfC in some central forum about the general use of G5. It appears to have local consensus at the admin noticeboard, but I don't know whether the average editor knows that inoffensive articles are being deleted in this fashion. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This all seems to be a rather complex series of deletions in connection with sock puppets Luciapop and Ugbedeg which goes back to June 2020. It is not clear to me why Ugbedeg was thought to be a sock puppet but only one article was deleted. As for Luciapop, 18 articles have been deleted since last June although the sock puppet block was made only yesterday, 24 December. I am really surprised that Luciapop is accused of being a sock puppet of Ugbedeg as their articles are not at all comparable. The only common denominator is that both are Nigerians. Perhaps Celestina007 and Ymblanter could look into this a little more closely. It seems to me a great pity that at a time when we are actively trying to promote increased coverage of Africa, and particularly women in Africa, so many articles are being deleted without discussion at AfD. Suspicion of undisclosed payment is a rather devious way of deleting articles which have been reviewed as sufficiently notable.(cc TJMSmith)--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry I am not involved in this except for my removal of the autopatrolled flag (for creating an article which was clearly not appropriate and later was speedy deleted). The sock was blocked by Blablubbs.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • There are >50 articles up for speedy as G5 at the moment. I'll click on the histories of those with female subjects and see if any should be declined but the ones I've looked at appear to have only had nonsubstantive editing by others. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
    They've all been processed; it looks like Liz did most (all?) some of the processing and declined a few as having substantive edits but some of the rest got batch-deleted unseen. The ones I checked (around 60%) did not have anything beyond minor copy edits, wikilinking, addition of categories &c. Is it useful to have a partial list of redlinks whose subjects were women (for the 60% of the heap I checked), or can this be extracted from Wikidata? For the record, none of them looked particularly spammy on a very quick glance. Some were clearly notable (mainly politicians), others more borderline. Perhaps Liz would care to comment on the remainder. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
    Espresso Addict: Thanks for all you efforts on G5 deletions. What I think might be useful is a Women in Red redlink list of biographies deleted under G5. This would at the very least allow us to add sources to those which look notable enough for re-creation and perhaps request draftified versions of those which look most promising. If I remember correctly, TJMSmith has offered to draftify any which seem useful. As you seem to take a special interest in these, you might like to start drawing up a list of those you have already identified. Those draftified could be marked appropriately. New G5 deletions could be added by you or anyone else as they occur. Extensive batches could be listed on separate pages. Does this sound useful? At the very least, it would provide us with assistance in drawing up crowd-sourced lists in connection with our monthly priorities, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
    It sounds like it would be useful to me as long as it includes something resembling the wikidata short description or occupation of each name, as we get in the Listeriabot redlinks. That way I can look through to find the ones that best match my editing interests. Bare lists of names are not as useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
    Several of the most prolific CSD nominators keep "CSD List" pages that could be useful. Pull all the links labeled as G5 from the lists and then cross-check with wikidata to see if the link is a WIR biography. SilverserenC 08:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm also willing to restore any of these to draft that WiR editors wish to adopt, but it might be politic to ask the deleting admin instead? Here's the ones I noted earlier (all deleted by Liz):

Will look for the others in a minute; I know Liz deleted some but another admin did the rest. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC) ETA I think that's the end of the big batch nominated on 25th; the rest look to be male subjects; will be going offline shortly. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A lot of those look like they would meet automatic notability criteria. Thanks for putting in the work to find those! SilverserenC 09:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Espresso Addict. I didn't realize you were an administrator. You should mention it on your user page and include the category there. I had to look at Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits to see your privileges. It certainly looks to me as if all these deserve to be restored or at least carefully examined with a view to restoration. We could simply start by seeing who would like to work on them. I would be happy to work on all the Malians, starting with the ministers. Perhaps you or David Eppstein could clarify the procedure for restoring deleted G5s. Is it sufficient to check through the drafts and make sure the sources are acceptable or is any additional work required?--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Sorry about the confusion; I have long used a script that displays user rights on the user/talk page and had actually forgotten that wasn't the default site behaviour! Actually I do mention being an administrator on my user page, though I stopped using the category as I don't deal in conduct issues and found I kept getting urgent demands to block IP vandals in the wee hours of the night when I was the only active admin.
On restoration, it would perhaps be best to ask Liz, who I think deleted all of these, but I'd be willing to restore to draft/userspace/WiR projectspace individual ones that someone had an interest in adopting and combing through the sources. While it's no secret that I consider some aspects of our G5 policy absurd, I agree with David Eppstein that restoration directly to mainspace is contrary to policy. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict:: Apologies from me too for not noticing administrator among the listed items on your user page and thanks for making it more noticeable. You are right that almost all the G5s are by Liz. I'll approach her directly on the ones I intend to re-create if I can't simply find sufficient material myself. I was not suggesting that they should all be restored to mainspace but as I mentioned above, I think it would have been useful to undertake a more thorough investigation of the editing habits of the two sock puppets in question. In general, however, I do agree that drastic action needs to be taken against those who can be firmly established as sock puppets although I think it would be sensible to limit the G5 deletions to those recently created or at least make draftified versions available for a limited period. Over the next few days, I'll look more carefully at those you have redlinked above and see whether I can at least turn some of them into acceptable stubs in the hope that others can expand further. It must not be very pleasant for deserving individuals in Africa to see that their biographies have suddenly been deleted without warning. Restoration of the essentials could provide some reassurance. Thanks once again for everything you are doing to improve our coverage of women and all the best for 2022.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
No worries, Ipigott. Indeed -- in the context of Black Lives Matter, I do fear hostile press coverage of Wikipedia if it is publicised that so many articles on notable Africans (of all genders) have been mass deleted for what seems to be such an inwardly focused rationale. And now I feel guilty about just having created three white male subject articles in a row. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
My scan of recent cases at WP:REFUND suggests that the outcome there for other recent G5's is that it cannot just be unilaterally undeleted (like a PROD would be) but that restoration as an article would instead either need the deleting administrator's agreement or a full DRV discussion. And my examination of one of the deleted articles (Diallo M'Bodji Sène) suggests that in this case at least that while the subject appears notable the sourcing of the deleted version is not well chosen (two sources look good, the other three only mention the subject in passing) and some of the claims appear incorrect (the deleted article names her "the only woman appointed Minister Delegate" in Mali with one of the sources being a list of 57 female women at that level over 57 years of independence). So while I think a request to restore them to user or draft space for cleanup would be uncontroversial (and can be requested through WP:REFUND, on an individual basis, by someone willing to take charge of one of these and get it into shape for an article), I don't think these are suitable for direct restoration to article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally, looking at the deleted history of Alina Anisimova, I found substantial edits by two different blocked sockpuppets with three SPIs, User:Luciapop blocked under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugbedeg, and User:NagalimNE blocked under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uptoniter / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NagalimNE. I'm not sure whether that means that it is ineligible for G5 (edited by multiple people), eligible for G5 (edited by multiple people but they're all socks) or whether maybe they're really the same sock farm and the SPIs should be merged. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Almost certainly not the same farm – though the NagalimNE edits were an incremental addition of an infobox spread over an absurd number of edits to game a high edit count before applying for user rights and publishing spam, which is the MO of that farm; the resulting infoboxes are often fairly useless, so I think one could reasonably argue that it wouldn't invalidate an otherwise necessary G5.
Regarding the broader topic at hand: The creations under discussion here are mostly stubs created to game autopatrolled/NPR/AFC and cover up more problematic creations like Parsiq; I suspect most (or all) of them are unpaid. I think the primary use of that CSD criterion in UPE cases should be getting rid of actually problematic content; the criterion is partially useful for structuring incentives, and deleting a bunch of coverup stubs doesn't disincentivise continued spamming. I would encourage people cleaning up after UPE farms to not tag creations indiscriminately and instead consider whether G5 is likely to a) prevent further disruption and/or b) get rid of otherwise problematic content. However, many spamsock stubs are either copyright violations or unattributed translations from other wikis; I randomly checked Tall Fatou Souko, which appears to just be an unattributed, incomplete machine translation of fi:Tall Fatou Souko, and I presume that's the case for most others; the actual amount of "work" lost here is far smaller than if they had actually written articles themselves, and the lack of attribution makes the content problematic even if it isn't paid (though it doesn't necessarily mean that deletion is required). If undeletions happen here, please keep the copyright aspect in mind. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I've come over from WP:DISAB to let you all know that I have draftified Draft:Josephine Sinyo and Draft:Henriette Lagou so they can be rehabilitated. (I found this discussion through looking at "what links here".) Anyone wishing to participate in cleaning up these two articles is most welcome. Both subjects are quite obviously notable, so that's not an issue Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the redlist above, I couldn't find much on Naima al-Ayyubi and Renée Cissé, but Marie-Thérèse Bocoum is clearly notable (she was awarded the National Order of the Ivory Coast), so I requested a draftified version of the previous article and would hope to bring it back into mainspace soon; my workings are currently at User:Mujinga/Marie-Thérèse Bocoum if anyone wants to collaborate Mujinga (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Actress notability (afd)

Hi, there is currently an AfD open for actress Tina Ona Paukstelis. I recently expanded the article but it's now at afd. She had had some reasonable coverage, although an issue may be that the sources I noted (and used in the article), were from the same newspaper. She has had many smaller/passing mentions on other papers over the years. Is it a lost cause trying to save it (if there were to be any further !deletes)? Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Annette Saunooke Clapsaddle

Annette Saunooke Clapsaddle, the author of the first novel to be published by someone from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, was recently redirected to her book Even As We Breathe. Do there appear to be sources out there to justify an article for her? Thriley (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally authors of a single book are not considered separately notable; there would have to be a lot of sources on her biography (not just book reviews) to justify an article, and even then there would be plenty of delete votes at AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's what I found. She's the author of more than just the one book. And don't forget the sources already in the book article.
More to come. SilverserenC 02:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
And some more.
Still more to come. SilverserenC 03:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this will be the last batch, for now.
That's all I can do. I hope it proves helpful. SilverserenC 04:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@User:Silver seren Thank you so much Silver! This looks to be plenty. Best, Thriley (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Thriley I think it's pretty normal for contemporary authors to be rolled into an article about their first book. But 2+ books with reviews from reliable sources is a common Keep argument, and she's got one in the works: [9]. If you can't find enough to support a standalone article now, you'll probably have enough soonish. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(Attention Required): Joan Didion

Not, of course, a "woman in red" but the article is awfully thin. With her death today, I was going to link it for a friend who was unfamiliar with her, but it's so weak I didn't feel that would be appropriate. In particular: not even a mention of her trajectory from enthusiastic "Goldwater girl" at 30 to becoming much more of a social liberal. - Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 and improving FAs

Hi everyone, I'm part of a working group called WP:URFA/2020 that reviews and improves featured articles promoted before 2016. Wikipedia's systematic bias towards men extends to featured articles: according to WikiProject Women in Green, 420 of the 6,048 FAs concern women or topics related to women. URFA/2020 would like experienced editors to help improve FAs so that they are not submitted to WP:FAR and demoted. Would this project be interested in receiving a report on our efforts, specifically focusing on articles that fall within your purview? We hope that a link to this report could be part of the newsletter that your group sends out via mass messaging. Please ping me in responses if interested, or leave a message at WT:URFA/2020. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, I cannot speak for everyone here, and note that this is a particularly difficult time of year to make requests like this since so many are off-line because of holiday functions. I personally would be interested, but cannot promise availability for such reviews until/if/when I finish the project on women's nationality that I began a year ago. I am wondering if notices could be added to the "Article alerts" section on our main page, but I am not remotely technical and have no idea how that could be accomplished. SusunW (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@SusunW: Thanks for your reply. There's no rush to have a report written: if editors are busy, URFA/2020 can write the report for WiR's Feb or March newsletter. URFA/2020 is also a project that will take a long time to complete (probably a couple of years) so there's no rush to review articles right now. In answer to adding notices to "Article alerts", Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks includes a list of articles at FAR, and something similar could be added to your main page. This would require adding the WiR Wikiproject banner to the article's talk page so that if the article does go to FAR, it is automatically added to your article alerts. Z1720 (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Z1720: Thanks for letting us know about your constructive efforts in this connection. While this is probably primarily of interest to WP Women in Green, I think it would certainly be in our interest to receive notifications of any FA or A-rated articles about women which are threatened with degrading. Maybe you also have a list of those which have already been degraded and need to be restored. As you probably know, some wikiprojects display lists of former featured articles and former GAs. I see, for example, that WP Women in Music has a list of 15 former FAs while wp:Women in Business lists 5. May I suggest that it would be useful to adopt the mechanisms from these projects to provide an overall listing (perhaps in connection with WP Women and/or WP Women in Green) of all former deleted As and FAs about women (especially women's biographies) and all current As and FAs sorted as very old, old, or recent (as in your existing reports). Some of us could perhaps then help in trying to restore some of those already degraded while assisting with work on those potentially threatened with degrading. Please keep me informed of any developments along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott The easiest way to create the list you suggest above is to tag the articles concerning women into a central Wikiproject (maybe Wikiproject Women or Wikiproject Women in Green?) When an article is listed at FAR, a bot will add it to a category that you can display on your mainpage. WiR already does something similar at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts, but these alerts are only for articles that have the WiR banner on the talk page and thus do not include many FAs. Would you like me to add a Wikiproject banner to the FAs, and if so which one?
I can also create a list of FA articles at URFA/2020 that might interest WiR or Women in Green, and articles that URFA/2020 has demoted that might interest you. This will take some time but I will post here when this is complete. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I have started a draft at User:Z1720/WiR. Interested editors are more than welcome to edit this page, or to provide feedback. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Z1720: I don't think it's really necessary to tag things manually. User:JL-Bot seems to run very well on Women in Music and Women in Business. I thought it might also run on Women in Green and I created Wikipedia:WomenProject Women in Green/result generated by JL-Bot only to find that the required template did not exist. If Alanna the Brave thinks it would be useful, we could create a template and see what we get.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Currently, there isn't a central project where FAs on biographies of women or other topics are categorized. For example, Joan of Arc is at FAR and is currently tagged at WikiProject Women's History but not WiG or WP Women. Would JL-Bot be able to put the list of FAs from multiple Wikiprojects onto one list? Bots and scripts are not my speciality so I'm sorry if this is a silly question. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting question, Z1720. Maybe JLaTondre can provide an answer or advise on how things can be set up and coordinated.--Ipigott (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Z1720: Thanks for tagging me -- interesting conversation, and certainly of interest to Women in Green. I'm not an expert on bots either, but I think I should point out that the current JL-Bot list of Current Featured Content on the WikiProject Women in Green homepage is already set up to pull GA and FA articles from multiple WikiProjects at once (WP Women, Women in Music, Women's History, Women's Sports, and others), using template1, template2, etc. Maybe we can simply adjust that to pull former FA articles the same way? I can experiment with it next week if nobody else takes it on first. No new templates required. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alanna the Brave: is it possible to create a list based on JL-Bot's list on WiG that only has FAs promoted before 2016? That would allow WiR/WiG to highlight articles that are at URFA/2020 and possible need review/improvements. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: I'm not sure -- that sounds a little more specialized than any JL-Bot actions I've seen, unfortunately. Just to clarify (as I'm late to the discussion): what's your primary goal? Are you mostly just aiming to recruit editors to assist in article upkeep/restoration? Keeping in mind that most WiR/WiG editors already have other projects on the go, I'm wondering if a monthly "highlight" of a relevant article in need of work might be a good option. Once you have your report ready on WiR/WiG-related articles under your project's purview, maybe WiG and WiR could partner on making improvements to one or two each month? Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alanna the Brave: My primary goal is for editors to review featured articles at URFA/2020, improve those articles if needed, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020 so they will not have to go to FAR. At our current rate, it will take 10+ years for URFA/2020 to review every FA promoted before 2016, which is why I am reaching out to other projects to find editors interested in reviewing articles. Originally, I was thinking of writing a project-specific report for WiR to highlight articles your editors might be interested in reviewing and to include the report in the WiR newsletter. If there is a better way to reach members, I would rather take that approach (and I like the idea of a monthly highlight.) I also appreciate Ipigott exploring adding an article alert for FARs, as those article alerts might find editors who want to improve FAs and prevent their demotion. I totally appreciate that editors have other projects; any help from members would be beneficial, even if it is for one article. Z1720 (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Alanna the Brave, for summarizing your priorities here. I think it would indeed be useful if you put together a page on how Women in Green is hoping to contribute to reviewing and improving FAs threatened with degrading. It could then be linked from the Women in Red announcements and and from future mass-messaged invitations. Personally, I think it is equally important to try to improve some of the former FAs to at least up to GA standard, if not FA. We could consider starting with those which are most frequently viewed. It should not be too difficult to draw up lists for different fields of interest.

As you know, many contributors to Women in Red also take part in Women in Green. I'm sure some would be happy to devote some of their editing time to assisting with the priorities you establish in collaboration with Z1720. I've had second thoughts on applying JL-Bot directly to Women in Green as it would probably require too much additional work on tagging, categorization, etc., but given it's success with Women in Music and Women in Business, it might be worthwhile applying it to Women writers and Women artists. I'll look into this more carefully over the next few days. Finally, I think it will be important to establish a realistic list of candidate FAR articles, summarizing the amount of effort required on each and suggesting which field(s) of interest need to be addressed. On that basis, we try to encourage volunteers to carry out the improvements needed, not only from Women in Red and Womeen in Green but from other appropriate wikiprojects dealing with women. Please keep us informed on this talk page of further developments, reporting on which women-related FARs have been revised as "saved".--Ipigott (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  • @Z1720: Thanks for the summary! Just wanted to make sure I had our bearings. :-) Okay, so you're looking for editors to do some basic reviews and damage control to (hopefully) keep old FAs from getting sent for a full review, while Ipigott has also raised the issue of restoring degraded former FAs. I'm going to take these tasks back to the Women in Green talk page (I'll probably wait until after Jan. 1) and see if I can generate some feedback/ideas from members on how we might approach them. I'll tag you in the conversation. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing female role models

Just been reading this interesting article by Amy Diehl of Wilson College titled “You Have To See It To Be It”: Missing Female Role Models and What We Can Do About It, published in Ms Magazine on 27 December. It calls for greater generalized emphasis of the achievements of historical and present-day female role models, including better coverage of their stories on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I am glad to see she encouraged people to edit Wikipedia. So often it's "Wikipedia should do this" and not "you can help with Wikipedia". Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

While we have articles on most of those she mentions (Anita Willets-Burnham, Katalin Karikó, Alexandra David-Néel, Zora Neale Hurston, Eunice Newton Foote, Amazons of Dahomey, Kathleen McNulty, Jean Jennings, Betty Snyder, Marlyn Wescoff, Frances Bilas, Ruth Lichterman, Grace Hopper and Frances Perkins), it looked as if we had nothing on the explorer Nan Shepard, but that was because of the misspelling of Nan Shepherd. Many of these articles could be significantly improved if they are to be put forward as role models for evolving students.--Ipigott (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just made a redirect to fix that little issue. SilverserenC 18:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"... articles judged unsuitable for undergraduates below the first paragraph"

I read this section of The Signpost (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-12-28/Recent research) with interest, in the context of 'lead/lede' paragraphs of women's biographies. It made me grateful that we are tackling the issue of short lead paragraphs in this month's "Double the Lede!" event.

Thanks for all you do -everyone- and Happy New Year! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein should be pleased to see that mathematics fared quite well.--Ipigott (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, although the four articles they chose are not ones that I've done much to. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

List of German Open Women's Singles champions in badminton

List of German Open Women's Singles champions in badminton does not have a WIR talk banner, or any direct relation to this project. But I saw it at AFD. No sourcing at all. Also, nobody seems to be rushing forth to favor deletion. Just thought I would drop this here in case it's a subject matter of interest to someone here. — Maile (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There looks to be a pdf source at the bottom covering up to 2006? Seems no reason to delete; I've often redirected such material, even if completely unsourced, to maintain the contribution history in case anyone wants to improve it. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Women in Oceania contest - Oct-Nov-Dec 2021

Women in Red Oceania Contest

The Women in Red Oceania Contest ran from October through December of 2022. There were a total of 24 active participants with 295 eligible articles created!
Congratulations to the winners:

Oceania was the fifth and final part of the Women in Red Continental Challenge. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Joan Didion image

Is there any other available image of Joan Didion? I don’t think the current one captures her all that well. Thriley (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You probably won't find anything better in public domain and "fair use" is tricky for someone so well known and recently dead can only be used when no PD image exists (which the article has). WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Karen Ferguson

I just made a draft for Karen Ferguson, a truly groundbreaking figure. I tried to move it into article space but could not as the article title is currently a redirect to another article. Could someone assist with that? I am on a trip and I find it difficult to do more technical edits on my phone. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know, Thriley, that Trillfendi has put up the redirect deletion tag on the redirect, so once an admin deals with that, you should then be able to move the draft. SilverserenC 18:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
All done, Thriley, article has been moved into mainspace. SilverserenC 19:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Silver! Happy New Year! Thriley (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Dorothy K. Willner, her mother, also appears notable. See her NYT obit. I'm confused about some of the biographical details though. NYT says she went to UChicago and UPenn and was born circa 1920; her entry in American Men and Women of Science says born 26 August 1927 and went to Chicago for all her degrees. Unless there were two American Dorothy Willners born in the 1920s who taught at KSU, one or both of these sources is wrong. I'm adding to Dorothy Willner (Q110371430) and will hopefully resolve the confusion there, but I think there's enough for an article on Dorothy (and possibly Sidney Willner, her father, too, although he's outside WiR's scope). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Her parents look like promising articles. I’ll add them to my to do list. Thank you and Happy New Year! Thriley (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy new year !

From the francophone project fr:Les sans pagEs happy new year to our sister project !

Giri und Ninjõ

Nattes à chat (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bisserov Sisters

Here's a new one for you. Any help with further sourcing would be appreciated. Knowledge of Bulgarian may be useful for finding them. Skyerise (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_107&oldid=1067586972"