This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
“Too Soon” to count? How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Wikipedia
New paper, “Too Soon” to count? How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Wikipedia , Mackenzie Lemieux et al. Jimmy Wales seems to wish to discuss it; User talk:Jimbo Wales#Getting NPOV right
- Abstract: While research has explored the extent of gender bias and the barriers to women's inclusion on English-language Wikipedia, very little research has focused on the problem of racial bias within the encyclopedia. Despite advocacy groups' efforts to incrementally improve representation on Wikipedia, much is unknown regarding how biographies are assessed after creation. Applying a combination of web-scraping, deep learning, natural language processing, and qualitative analysis to pages of academics nominated for deletion on Wikipedia, we demonstrate how Wikipedia's notability guidelines are unequally applied across race and gender. We find that online presence predicts whether a Wikipedia page is kept or deleted for white male academics but that this metric is idiosyncratically applied for female and BIPOC academics. Further, women's pages, regardless of race, were more likely to be deemed “too soon” for Wikipedia. A deeper analysis of the deletion archives reveals that when the tag is used on a woman's biography it is done so outside of the community guidelines, referring to one's career stage rather than media/online coverage. We argue that awareness of hidden biases on Wikipedia is critical to the objective and equitable application of the notability criteria across race and gender both on the encyclopedia and beyond.
--Tagishsimon (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tagishsimon, for bringing this to our attention. I have read the article with interest. If their conclusions are correct then there seems to be a solid case for being more careful not to delete so many women's biographies on the basis of "Too soon". I think the article would have been more convincing if more graphics had been provided on the results of the analyses made and the time periods covered. The one graphic presented unfortunately fails to provide any numerical data. Given your own interest in statistics, you could provide you own views on the reliability of their results. It was interesting to see that in their conclusions, they suggest that acceptance of a Wikipedia biography could also consider coverage on "other online platforms such as Reddit, Facebook/Instagram, or Twitter" (which have constantly be deemed unreliable). --Ipigott (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I find Mackenzie Lemieux et al's focus on WP:Too soon and WP:Search engine test odd. "Too soon" is a summary of notability policies so the result is the same whether "Too soon" or WP:Notability is quoted. The "Search engine test" page says "Hit-count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability".
- Referencing a 2021 paper by Tripodi, Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia, the article says "recent work has uncovered that women who meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are more likely to be nominated for deletion than men". That seems to mean that articles on women are more likely to survive a deletion discussion than articles on men, which isn't necessarily a problem. TSventon (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
That seems to mean that articles on women are more likely to survive a deletion discussion than articles on men, which isn't necessarily a problem.
Really? It shines a light on a huge set of problems. Wikipedia is a mirror of society as we rely on media generated by society to determine notability. The article says "Female academics are less likely to be recognized on Wikipedia than their male counterparts across all fields of study", which is a clear example as women academics in the real world are less likely to be hired, promoted, funded, etc. than equally qualified male colleagues.[1],[2],[3] Then there is the issue that the media covers women/BIPOC in more trivial and negative ways.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] As a society, we haven't banished our biases of thinking women/BIPOC are "less than". How can that not be a problem or at least a barrier to making a more balanced encyclopedia?- Add to that the fact that our guidelines skew notability toward subjects based on coverage in mainstream sources with high circulation, rather than the highest quality sources mostly likely to cover un- and under-represented subjects. It is virtually impossible to change our "rules", because one will be accused of attempting to "right great wrongs" or set up different criteria for "special groups". How can that not be a problem? How can the time sink of deletion and policy discussions not be a problem? Failing to acknowledge the multitude of problems is just another way of ignoring them. The truth is, we as a society and as Wikipedia editors do not have the will, desire, or ability to fix the problems. We throw our hands up because it is too big to fix. But the problems are there. The easiest solution is to write more quality articles with a strong statement of why they are notable and use our network to help each other do that, so that we avoid deletion discussions completely. And on that note, I am going to go write an article. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tagishsimon, for sharing the article and noting Jimbo's discussion request on his talkpage.
- The article states:
The need to create safe spaces also deters women editors from participating in Wikipedia discussions when articles are nominated for deletion because it requires a “taxing level of emotional labor”
. Generally, I avoid "participating in Wikipedia discussions" when they require a "taxing level of emotional labor", be it at AfD or elsewhere, so that sentence certainly resonates with me. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC) - Sorry, TSventon, I'm not following? How does being more likely to be AfD'd mean more likely to survive it? Valereee (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- That’s what tripodi’s study found (from the 2023 paper ‘Consistent with Tripodi's (2021) earlier work, we found that the pages of female academics, regardless of race, are more likely to be kept after nomination for deletion compared to pages for male academics’) Eddie891 Talk Work 14:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ah! Thanks for the clarification! Valereee (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't this imply that articles about notable female academics are nominated for deletion more frequently than articles about notable male academics? It's good that many of them survive, but others must be slipping through the cracks. pburka (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- pburka Tripodi’s study says "My data indicate that women’s biographies are more frequently miscategorized as non-notable than men’s (see Figure 2). On average, 19% of all biographies nominated for deletion are kept from January 2017 to February 2020, but roughly 25% of women’s biographies are miscategorized, whereas only 17% of men are miscategorized." That equates being nominated for deletion and kept with being miscategorized as non-notable. The discrepancy could be partly explained by unjustified nominations of women's biographies, but also by more work being done to prove that women's biographies are notable. TSventon (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- That’s what tripodi’s study found (from the 2023 paper ‘Consistent with Tripodi's (2021) earlier work, we found that the pages of female academics, regardless of race, are more likely to be kept after nomination for deletion compared to pages for male academics’) Eddie891 Talk Work 14:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- After reading the study, and with the caveat that I’m not qualified in data science, I think they make a number of correct points (including there is a gender gap, AFDs are often unpleasant, there are discrepancies in how people of different gender and race are treated at afd), but reading it from the POV of a Wikipedan, it suffers from a number of misunderstandings of the site, including the misinterpretation of the search engine test and what a snow keep is, and seemingly using 2022 search results to assess afds from years ago. Yet I think there is still a relevant point to be made here. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Eddie891, it appears that their conclusions are based on their belief that number of GHits is the standard Wikipedia-approved way to determine notability, and that AfDs on women academics suffer significantly more from participants using biased arguments that are not
in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines of the tag WP:Too soon
, such as that "the subject doesn't have the citations or academic coverage of their work expected for academic notability", rather than the correct Wikipedia notability metric for academics (amount of media coverage). Facepalm JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Eddie891, it appears that their conclusions are based on their belief that number of GHits is the standard Wikipedia-approved way to determine notability, and that AfDs on women academics suffer significantly more from participants using biased arguments that are not
- Its good to have some data to back up what I think we all already felt in our gut, I've known for a long time that when creating a new biographical article if the subject is a woman it needs to be at least twice as long in order to avoid someone attempting to smother it in its crib. I forgot that recently and made nearly identical pages for Libby Locke and Tom Clare (lawyer)... They are of equal notability and most of the sources were used on both pages... @Dan arndt: tried to WP:PROD Locke for no reason I can see other than her gender but nothing has happened to Clare. I would suggest the creation of a bias noticeboard to address this sort of behavior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- As it's a typical dense read, I'll highlight some points that struck me reading through:
- Para 2 of intro: "Eventually, her page received a “snow keep” decision, indicating that her notability might be questionable but that deleting her page would be too much of an uphill battle to pursue (WP:SNOW)". Unfortunate to have such a howling misunderstanding so early.
- "Of the more than 1.5 million biographies about notable writers, inventors, and academics on English-language Wikipedia..." As wikidata analysis shows, a wierd mischaracterization of the wp bio population - I think sports people outnumber all these combined... No mention of historical factors - are they aware of them? They write as though we only cover living people.
- Many of the citations were published over a decade ago, so probably researched over 12 ya.
- "For academic biographies on Wikipedia, notability is achieved through the significant impact of one's scholarly work on society, the winning of prestigious academic awards, or the holding of important leadership positions at an academic institution or academic journal board" - not really, unless citation counts = "impact of one's scholarly work on society".
- "Since Wikipedia does not count trainees, research scientists, and/or government workers as “academics” - where does "Wikipedia" say this? In practice, I think this is often true, but often not (especially for the last 2 groups).
- Generally the paper seems to deal with an all-American world, while taking global statistics. There is no mention of using other languages in the many web searches, nor of allowing for differences in the way academia works in different countries, an issue fairly commonly raised in academic Afds. One Australian example gets mention, but I think that's it.
- The "too soon" findings are interesting, but they assume (despite invoking Jess Wade right at the start) that male and female bios are created with the same process and motivations, which is clearly not always the case. Indeed this project exists to ensure that it is not the case, and the paper gives a lot of space to efforts to boost womens' representation, without any consideration as to how this might affect the data they analyse. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Citation metrics are only part of the standard "claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on."Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think the motivation for creating biographies is a huge deal that the authors, who clearly didn't do any research into how wikipedia P&Gs actually work, failed to account for. There have been many initiatives (including a number of WikiEd classes) to increase representation of women/BIPOC in academia that engage well-meaning but inexperienced editors, and predictably they produce a lot of biographies on non-notable subjects (e.g. current PhD students, administrative staff, etc. with zero scholarship). BLPs from novice users are given more scrutiny, and so these NN bios are generally noticed more quickly by patrollers and brought to AfD, where they are indeed often identified as being premature. Additionally, there are a few phenomena I've noticed happening much more at Afds on women academics than those on men that would influence their data. One is that they tend to get a lot more "saving" attention (as might be expected given the DELSORT and multiple woman-focused projects), which will sometimes uncover academic notability-demonstrating sourcing(*) that would not have even been looked for with a male subject. However, this attention can also bring in editors who are not familiar with academia/NPROF and attempt to demonstrate notability using lay media coverage (which is usually more targeted than the crude "search engine test" that the authors inexplicably chose as a metric for gauging notability), when NPROF was created precisely because this parameter is so useless for academics. In fact, it appears that all of their examples of AfD'd female academics whom they deem "notable" were either kept based on meeting GNG (sometimes via news articles on the AfD itself), not NPROF, or deleted based on not meeting NPROF and media coverage being too trivial/non-independent/BLP1E for NBIO (even if there were technically a lot of google hits).
- (*)This outcome is more common in the humanities, where the existence of book reviews offers a pass through NAUTHOR for subjects who wouldn't otherwise pass NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
How did this get published?? This paper purports to investigate bias towards deletion of female academics' biographies, which it alleges is through (intentionally?) idiosyncratic application of Wikipedia P&Gs, and then uses, as the core metrics for independently validating the conclusions of academic AfDs, two deeply, fundamentally inappropriate essays: the "WP:Search Engine Test", which is explicitly discouraged by notability guidelines, and "WP:Too soon", which is a purely informal post hoc reason offered for why the subject's coverage isn't at the level expected for notability (which is very different from the mechanism used to actually determine they didn't meet a notability guideline). And not only did the authors also totally misinterpret what those essays are about, the metrics they derived from them are so totally inapplicable to academic notability in particular that they're precisely why academic-specific notability criteria were developed! They literally are basing a large chunk of their analysis on whether the WP:Search Engine Test is being equitably utilized
for academics taken to AfD between 2017 and 2020 ("equitability" being evaluated using the GHits from a webcrawler run in 2022). They then scraped the AfDs of deleted pages (n=377) for the shortcut "WP:Too soon" (n=61), which, again, they thought was being used as the metric for notability, and categorized those instances as either complying with the WP definition of TOOSOON (i.e., in the context of lack of sources and citations)
(??) or outside of the community established definition (i.e., in the context of career stage)
. It's also worth keeping in mind the fact that these analyses did not control for field of specialization (how could they, that would give them an even worse sample size), which will obviously impact how big a "web presence" an individual has and is obviously not homogeneous between men and women.
So this means the authors' conclusions on how biased AfD participants are against women/BIPOC academics were determined based on a) the finding that crude search engine hits for AfD'd white male academics (n=419) were significantly higher for "kept" subjects than "deleted" subjects, but no such significant relationship could be found for white women (n=185), BIPOC men (n=171), or BIPOC women (n=69); and b) the finding that editors used the "Wikipedia definition" (news coverage) of TOOSOON (n=61 total) more often for women/BIPOC than for men.
As a final example of the embarrassingly bad quality of this paper, I'll just paste the authors' commentary on their TOOSOON results:
First, let us illustrate the usage of WP:Too soon per Wikipedia guidelines. The following excerpt is from the AfD for the biography of a white, male, assistant professor who was nominated for deletion under the tag WP:Too soon: “Most of the newspaper articles cited in the main article are not directly related to the subject, and apart from this brief article in the Dainik Jagran that borders on being a hagiography of the subject, there's no real coverage for WP:GNG. WP:Too soon perhaps.”
As this moderator noted, the subject had inappropriate articles cited and inadequate coverage to support notability, even after a thorough online search. Despite the academic being an assistant professor, the moderator focused on media coverage, not the career stage, of the subject which is in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines of the tag WP:Too soon.
However, we noticed that women's pages more frequently had a WP:Too soon label and that the use of the designation was often in reference to their career status, a rationale outside Wikipedia's guidelines for the tag WP:Too soon. These pages were subsequently deleted because the individual was too early in her career to be featured on Wikipedia. These examples from AfD discussions all failed to mention the presence or depth of media coverage.
- Delete per WP:PROF and WP:Too soon. She has respectable citation counts for a postdoc, but postdocs (and assistant professors and the UK/Irish equivalents) are usually too early in their career to have attracted enough attention to their works for academic notability, and [X] does not appear to be an exception to this general rule.
- Delete as far WP:Too soon. Assistant professors are usually not notable and this is no exception.
- I agree it looks to be WP:Too soon. If there are articles on male scientists of a similar early career stage, they should be nominated for deletion. The creating editor seems to misunderstand the level of notability required for academics.
Our dataset revealed that men at similar early career stages were present on Wikipedia. For example, Colin G. DeYoung, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota had his page kept after a nomination for deletion. There was no mention of WP:Too soon in the AfD discussion and it only contained three responses, all of which voted “Keep” on the basis of citation count.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not a good paper. The fixation upon the so-called "Search Engine Test" is frankly bizarre. Did they read the page before deciding to invoke it repeatedly? XOR'easter (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- It would seem that they did not... Eddie891 Talk Work 13:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- What's even more puzzling is that they actually correctly summarize NPROF...and then go on to criticize !votes that use its criteria as "outside the community norms". The other wikipedia papers by some of these authors (especially Tripodi) are also quite poor methodologically and make me seriously question the peer review process of their journals. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- One would imagine it might be worth... I don't know... consulting someone with knowledge of Wikipedia functions before publishing a paper on them. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- The issue with that then becomes who the researcher chooses to consult with, as can be seen with the paper that ignited the current ArbCom case. I feel like a lot of academic researchers who write about Wikipedia (besides those either affiliated with the project in some way, or in a field like library science or similar) just have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates, imagining us as a sort of constant monolith and thus justifying the use of 12 year old data. Curbon7 (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strangely, academics writing big data papers on wp very rarely do, and the omission is usually clear in their papers. It's also pretty clear that the peer review process doesn't involve anyone with significant knowledge of the subject. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- The peer review probably is the authors of those other big data WP papers, who by this point likely consider themselves Wikipedia experts. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- This paper is irksome enough that I'd write a formal response, but I value my pseudonymity, and on top of that, I'm not eager to deal with a journal whose review process was so lacking in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Does the WMF or anyone maintain a list of Wikipedian academics who might be willing to do peer reviews? Someone should. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think a formal response would be a good idea. The editors might be willing to consider publishing something by a collective of Wikipedia editors, perhaps pseudonymously - it's got to be worth asking. If the review process was lacking, I feel that's a broader problem with understanding of how Wikipedia works that's likely to shape future research and peer review, so a reply pointing out some of these problems could perform a useful service beyond correcting any mistakes with this particular paper. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- This journal somehow has an impact factor of 8.7! JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- This paper is irksome enough that I'd write a formal response, but I value my pseudonymity, and on top of that, I'm not eager to deal with a journal whose review process was so lacking in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- The peer review probably is the authors of those other big data WP papers, who by this point likely consider themselves Wikipedia experts. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- One would imagine it might be worth... I don't know... consulting someone with knowledge of Wikipedia functions before publishing a paper on them. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- "To determine accuracy in our comparisons, we also collected the career stages of each individual designated WP:Too soon. Wikidata does not include the career stage, so we assigned two research assistants to find and document the career stage of each individual labeled WP:Too soon between the years of 2017 and 2020. Since academic's jobs and career levels fluctuate often, the career stage was determined based on the creation date of the AfD page. Since perceived notability among academics is highly contingent on their rank (Adams et al., 2019; WP:Notability (academics)), academic careers were scored based on stage (e.g., assistant = 1; associate = 2; etc.)." Argh! You can't just neglect citation metrics when talking about how academic bio AfD's evaluate career status! The only time that "career stage" as they think of it factors into a WP:PROF judgment is if the subject has attained the named chair/Distinguished Professor level. Other than that, mentioning the subject's "career stage" is just part of an explanation of why the actual standards haven't been met. They are confusing both the status of WP:PROF versus WP:TOOSOON (guideline versus essay) and the logical roles those pages play in the very !votes they quote. As noted above,
a purely informal post hoc reason offered for why the subject's coverage isn't at the level expected for notability [...] is very different from the mechanism used to actually determine they didn't meet a notability guideline
. The claim thatWikipedia does not count trainees, research scientists, and/or government workers as “academics”
is flat-out untrue. Plenty of IEEE Fellows work in industry and are notable per WP:PROF#C3, for example. And when articles on students show up (e.g., here), we file them with the other academics-and-educators AfD's. They're academics who just probably haven't done anything of note yet! XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC) - The quotes given after
These examples from AfD discussions all failed to mention the presence or depth of media coverage
are misleadingly presented. Two of the three are from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Killick. One of the !votes quoted actually began,Sadly, fails WP:NPROF.
I'd call that a significant omission! Moreover, that AfD did discussthe presence or depth of media coverage
, insofar as editors noted that there wasn't any. (The Irish Times reference is an opinion piece of which Killick's name is only mentioned once among many, many other names. I cannot locate any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability.
) In addition, the sentence immediately after the blockquote isOur dataset revealed that men at similar early career stages were present on Wikipedia.
Their example is Colin G. DeYoung, who at the time of his AfD had an h-index of 44. That is not "similar" to a postdoc who coauthored a respectable but unremarkable number of papers (no more than 10). The third quote is also truncated; the original is from here and concludedTiny citations on GS do not pass WP:Prof and lack of independent in-depth sources fails WP:GNG.
XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)- WOW I didn't even think to check whether those AfD quotes were faithfully reproduced -- that looks very much like academic fraud there (imagine if a hard science paper selectively excluded portions of their data that literally reversed the experimental conclusion)! JoelleJay (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
To confirm the validity of the “Primer Index,” we also created a “Google Index” to approximate the total number of hits that appear when an academic's full name and occupation are searched on Google. Using a custom Google Sheets code, we extracted an academic's full name and occupation from Wikidata and automatically searched Google for every instance of “full name + occupation” for each academic in our dataset on the same day.
WP:GOOGLEHITS. Good grief. WP:GOOGLEHITS. They "validated" their "Primer Index" based on an argument that is literally one of the arguments we tell everyone to avoid. And then they turn around and sayour data indicate that BIPOC biographies who meet Wikipedia's criteria (i.e., above the White Male Keep median Primer Index of 12.00) were among those deleted
. There is no reason to equate passing some threshold of the "Primer Index" with meeting "Wikipedia's criteria". No bloody reason at all.For example, Tonya Foster, a professor of creative writing and Black feminist scholar at San Francisco State University had a high Primer Index of 41 yet her Wikipedia page was deleted.
Hey, that's weird: Tonya Foster exists. Surely it would be worth mentioning that a page was recreated after being deleted? At the time of the AfD in 2017, the consensus was that WP:AUTHOR was not met. According to here, she didn't join San Francisco State University until 2020, at which point she was named one of the George and Judy Marcus Endowed Chairs, so the argument for her passing WP:PROF got significantly stronger.Another example is the late Sudha Shenoy, an economist and professor of economic history at the University of Newcastle, Australia, who had a high Primer Index of 198 yet her page was also deleted.
According to her profile at the Mises Institute, she was a "lecturer" at Newcastle. (This blog post suggests that it might have been a spousal-hire situation.) A "lecturer" in Australia is a lower academic rank than a professor. In any case, that AfD looked at WP:PROF and WP:GNG and found that neither was met; citation counts were low, no other academic notability criteria could be argued for, and the sources about her were unreliably published. Another !vote they quote also began with a rationale they chopped off:The only form of notability claimed in the article is academic, but our standards for academic notability explicitly exclude student awards. Merely having written a few review papers is inadequate for notability; the papers need to be heavily cited, and here they appear not to be.
XOR'easter (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)It almost looks like the Primer team didn't pay attention to the academic notability guidelines, relying instead on Big Data to figure out what "notability" means in practice. [...] Why trust your own ability to Big Data the answer, instead of just reading what the community has already codified as important? Even if your goal is to say that Wikipedia in practice falls short of that standard, or to argue that the standard needs revision, you need to pay more attention to it than they, by all appearances, did.
—XOR'easter, August 2018. XOR'easter (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- In case they are not yet aware of this discussion, pinging David Eppstein, several of whose !votes are quoted in the paper. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I had seen the discussion here, and beyond sharing the general horror at the misrepresentation of what we've been doing had not commented because I thought I had nothing new to add. I hadn't read the paper and hadn't realized that I was quoted so prominently in it. I'm not sure whether I should be pleased or whether it adds to the academic misconduct (why not both?) that they're taking a direct quote by an identifiable person and deliberately stripping it of its attribution. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- They have made a manifestly and indefensibly incorrect claim about how Wikipedia editors judge topics for notability and backed it up with deceptive quotations and meaningless numbers. I'd go with "both". XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I have started drafting a commentary. There just keeps being more to write about! I'm still trying to evaluate what they wrote about the Clarice Phelps case; they say her bio
was deleted three times in the span of one week
. I remember that whole situation being a mess, but that specific claim is not in the cited source, and there's no one-week span in the article milestones at Talk:Clarice Phelps that could match. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)- I think the commentary is excellent. A more direct "metric" you might want to add re: relative use of the "search engine test" etc. is how often WP:NPROF and WP:GNG are invoked in scholar AfDs. It might also be helpful to explain why we prefer NPROF for these subjects; for example, their "full name AND occupation" search won't return any reference sections of academic papers citing the subject's research, nor will it return mentions in books or in the body of many paywalled journal articles, nor will it return anything in non-English (there's no indication they limited their sample to people working in Anglophone countries). Their approach also does not control for academic specialty: surely a postdoc in, idk, marketing will have a much higher "primer index" than a professor of Hodge theory? Not to mention the fact that gender distribution among specialties is highly uneven. Additionally, what their search will return are mentions in unreliable sources, which never count towards notability and would be rejected outright at AfD, and that's not even touching on all the non-independent hits (every biology paper my PhD adviser publishes with a student gets a promotional blurb from the department, also she has like 5 departmental profiles somehow). JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good ideas. I'll experiment a bit with search queries to see if I can get decent figures for how often different guidelines are invoked. I added a paragraph about why NPROF is necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- One suggestion: since the article quotes me as invoking TOOSOON, perhaps I should explain what I generally mean by it. It is never the actual reason for a delete opinion, at least from me. In the cases under discussion, my choices are always grounded in notability guidelines and policies, not essays. When I use TOOSOON, it is not intended to strengthen the case for deletion. Maybe it is the opposite: it is a ray of hope in an otherwise negative opinion. If I think someone is not likely to ever be notable, I am probably just going to say delete, and explain why. If I think an academic does not currently meet our notability standards, but is on a trajectory on which they might well eventually do so, years later, I will say TOOSOON. We often see re-creations of the same articles, years apart, and including this in an opinion is a suggestion that if we discuss the same case again sometime we should check their accomplishments again more carefully instead of relying on past opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I've quoted your comment. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have now reached a breathing point, I think, and I will sleep on it before I try to plan what to do next. XOR'easter (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- One suggestion: since the article quotes me as invoking TOOSOON, perhaps I should explain what I generally mean by it. It is never the actual reason for a delete opinion, at least from me. In the cases under discussion, my choices are always grounded in notability guidelines and policies, not essays. When I use TOOSOON, it is not intended to strengthen the case for deletion. Maybe it is the opposite: it is a ray of hope in an otherwise negative opinion. If I think someone is not likely to ever be notable, I am probably just going to say delete, and explain why. If I think an academic does not currently meet our notability standards, but is on a trajectory on which they might well eventually do so, years later, I will say TOOSOON. We often see re-creations of the same articles, years apart, and including this in an opinion is a suggestion that if we discuss the same case again sometime we should check their accomplishments again more carefully instead of relying on past opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good ideas. I'll experiment a bit with search queries to see if I can get decent figures for how often different guidelines are invoked. I added a paragraph about why NPROF is necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think the commentary is excellent. A more direct "metric" you might want to add re: relative use of the "search engine test" etc. is how often WP:NPROF and WP:GNG are invoked in scholar AfDs. It might also be helpful to explain why we prefer NPROF for these subjects; for example, their "full name AND occupation" search won't return any reference sections of academic papers citing the subject's research, nor will it return mentions in books or in the body of many paywalled journal articles, nor will it return anything in non-English (there's no indication they limited their sample to people working in Anglophone countries). Their approach also does not control for academic specialty: surely a postdoc in, idk, marketing will have a much higher "primer index" than a professor of Hodge theory? Not to mention the fact that gender distribution among specialties is highly uneven. Additionally, what their search will return are mentions in unreliable sources, which never count towards notability and would be rejected outright at AfD, and that's not even touching on all the non-independent hits (every biology paper my PhD adviser publishes with a student gets a promotional blurb from the department, also she has like 5 departmental profiles somehow). JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I had seen the discussion here, and beyond sharing the general horror at the misrepresentation of what we've been doing had not commented because I thought I had nothing new to add. I hadn't read the paper and hadn't realized that I was quoted so prominently in it. I'm not sure whether I should be pleased or whether it adds to the academic misconduct (why not both?) that they're taking a direct quote by an identifiable person and deliberately stripping it of its attribution. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The journal Social text is famous for publishing the paper that was the subject of the Sokal hoax, and this led to much criticism of its peer review standards at the time. In view of the errors, inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the present paper that have been exposed by XOR'easter and other contributors to this thread, I ask if this paper is another Sokal-type hoax designed to draw attention to lax peer review standards of the journal it was published in? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC).
- For info this "Too soon" paper was published in Big Data & Society, for which we have no article (nor as Big Data and Society). It's published by Sage. PamD 07:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- On the basis of these rankings, it is hardly surprising we have no article. We do however have a page on SAGE Publishing. I gave SAGE journals as the publisher when I listed the article on our research page.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Some of its problems, like the misrepresentation of WP:Search engine test, also occur in the 2021 paper. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is noted that authors are required to pay a fee of USD1850 to publish in this journal.[10] It has been suggested above that a Wikipedia response should be submitted to the journal to rebut the errors in the paper. This might involve finding $1850 for the submission. I would be reluctant for Wikipedia to fund a journal of such a standard (and who is to pay?). A better plan might be to submit the response to WP:Signpost, which is always eager for quality material. The response would get a wider audience, and it has the audience that is needed to be influenced. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC).
- This isn't a research paper, so the journal shouldn't charge that much (if anything) for submission. It might have to be handled as a private communication to the publisher with publication of the concerns at the discretion of the journal. And do people outside of Wikipedia read the Signpost? Retraction Watch would be more likely get the type of response to and coverage of the issues that we're seeking. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, so it would be worth consulting this guidance on post-publication critiques. They also have a blog, so other output options are available to them, but I think the COPE guidelines compel them to at least consider publishing critiques and I don't think they can use a publisher's article processing charge as a barrier to that. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks all for the suggestions and links. I've written plenty of peer reviews over my career, and I've suggested revision or rejection a fair number of times, but calling for a published paper to be retracted is quite unusual for me. I'm still uncertain as to the best course of action from here. This ended up being a much longer commentary than I had originally anticipated. I had thought I'd produce a fairly brief note that others might want to join in the writing of, or at least co-sign, but it now seems unfair to ask anyone else to agree with all the choices I made in trying to organize my remarks. Asking to run it as a Signpost column sounds like a good idea, but something else needs to be done, too. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is noted that authors are required to pay a fee of USD1850 to publish in this journal.[10] It has been suggested above that a Wikipedia response should be submitted to the journal to rebut the errors in the paper. This might involve finding $1850 for the submission. I would be reluctant for Wikipedia to fund a journal of such a standard (and who is to pay?). A better plan might be to submit the response to WP:Signpost, which is always eager for quality material. The response would get a wider audience, and it has the audience that is needed to be influenced. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC).
- Thank you for the stalwart work you have done on this technically dense subject. The article analysed seems to be the second attempt to dumb down or negate WP:Prof, the policy guideline for scholars and researchers that has been developed through consensus over the years. In your analysis, I wonder if the adage GIGO could be invoked somewhere? I think that a good place to make the analysis public would be to publish it in Signpost. That would put it before a large audience of people well-informed about Wikipedia’s practices. Many more interested people will see it there than if it were published in in an obscure journal. The authors of the paper, of course, have the chance to respond on Signpost, if they so wish. Depending on their response or others, the matter could be taken elsewhere subsequently, as suggested above on the thread. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC).
- Thanks indeed XOR'easter! The Signpost audience isn't that large (midway between issues, the main page has had 6,000 views in 20 days). One might also try the WMF blog, most of who's entries seem to be about "gaps", but it is heavier than the style they seem to like. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- What we want is for the deficiencies in the paper to be made clear to people who are completely outside of the Wikipedia community, since those are the people who are writing and reviewing these papers. JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- The other danger is that items from this paper will be quoted in future publications, just as this paper relies on questionable assertions from earlier research. Unfortunately, I don't think there's too much we can do about it.--Ipigott (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm not sure how to do that, other than trying to get the paper retracted, and to get a website like Retraction Watch to pick up the story. XOR'easter (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I've listed it with the Signpost submissions. Still trying to figure out what other steps to take. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Would you still consider sending it to the journal editors? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm considering it; the question on my mind is how to raise a fuss while preserving my pseudonymity. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes that is a tricky one. Maybe submit it as Wikipedia editor XOR'easter? In a way it seems appropriate for a Wiki editor to reply. Like Cordless Larry I do think it's worth sending to the journal - as others have said the Signpost wouldn't get read outside Wikipedia and on top of that there is a developing sector of academics publishing bad work about Wikipedia which needs to be called out. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe it would help to have the commentary endorsed by other editors, some of whom are not pseudonymous? JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I could also prepare a summary or abstract (maybe a paragraph or two) that could be co-signed. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm considering it; the question on my mind is how to raise a fuss while preserving my pseudonymity. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Would you still consider sending it to the journal editors? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- The other danger is that items from this paper will be quoted in future publications, just as this paper relies on questionable assertions from earlier research. Unfortunately, I don't think there's too much we can do about it.--Ipigott (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Are there any updates on this, XOR'easter? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- No word from anyone involved in the Signpost. As for preparing a short summary, how about this:
In their March 2023 paper "'Too Soon' to count? How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Wikipedia", Lemieux, Zhang, and Tripodi make a series of factually incorrect claims. Among other things, they selectively quote the comments of Wikipedia editors in ways that change meaning, and they misrepresent both the content and the use of Wikipedia documentation pages. Due to these and other errors that even a casual review should have uncovered, the statistics presented in this paper are fundamentally meaningless. This paper's problems are too pervasive to be addressed by an erratum or an expression of concern. The literature on the important subject of systemic bias in Wikipedia would be best served by a retraction and a careful re-examination of the editorial process.
XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)- That looks great, let me know when/if you want non-pseudonymous endorsement. JoelleJay (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's been a busy week, but once I get a few other items off my plate, I'll be able to think about this one again. XOR'easter (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've cleared a little time today to try figuring out where to send this summary (and to think of a snappier title for the long version). From here, it looks like an email should go to
bdseditors@gmail.com
and maybe alsopublication_ethics@sagepub.com
. XOR'easter (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) - OK, there's been zero interest or reaction from anyone at the Signpost, so I suppose that's a dead end. XOR'easter (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't entirely bet on that. They've just got an issue out & I think the process can be erratic. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, it's been noticed now, at least. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well that's good they want to publish at least some sort of version, but I still think it's worth contacting the journal or publishing it elsewhere to reach a non-wikipedia audience. Just my two cents. Mujinga (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. My time and energy have been drained by typical end-of-semester stuff, so everything is slow... It looks like it will appear in the Signpost (edited somewhat, which is fine with me); this has the advantage that a shorter note that we send to the journal, publisher, Retraction Watch, etc., can point to an official record of sorts. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well that's good they want to publish at least some sort of version, but I still think it's worth contacting the journal or publishing it elsewhere to reach a non-wikipedia audience. Just my two cents. Mujinga (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, it's been noticed now, at least. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't entirely bet on that. They've just got an issue out & I think the process can be erratic. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- That looks great, let me know when/if you want non-pseudonymous endorsement. JoelleJay (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- No word from anyone involved in the Signpost. As for preparing a short summary, how about this:
Misinterpretation of p-values in the "Primer index" comparisons
(Late to the discussion here, but I only just read the paper, in the context of reviewing XOR'easter's Signpost submission.)
It seems to me that there is another serious problem with the Lemieux et al. paper that hasn't been discussed yet, concerning its statistical methods. To recap, as part of their "demonstrat[ing] how Wikipedia’s notability guidelines are unequally applied across race and gender", the authors write:
If WP:Search Engine Test is being equitably applied, academics with “kept” articles should have a larger online presence score than academics with “deleted” articles, regardless of gender or race.
Let's accept this claim for the moment, i.e. take the authors's assumption for granted that their "Primer index" (their "online presence score") somehow corresponds to the only factor determining AfD outcomes. (In other words, let's leave aside for now all the serious concerns others have expressed above about construct validity, possible confounders, etc.) The authors describe their core statistical result about it as follows:
We found that white men whose pages were “kept” had a significantly higher median Primer Index (Median = 12.00) than white men whose pages were deleted (Median = 8.00, p = .0093 using Kruskal-Wallis test with post-hoc Dunn’s multiple comparisons) (Figure 2). However, this observation did not hold true for white women or for BIPOC academics on Wikipedia. There was no statistically significant difference in the median Primer Index between kept and deleted pages for white women or for BIPOC academics (Figure 2). This finding indicates that there is a meaningful difference in WP:Search Engine Test outcomes for kept versus deleted white males but that the WP:Search Engine Test is not an accurate predictor of Wikipedia persistence for female and BIPOC academics.
But the problem here is that this discrepancy - finding a significant difference for white men but not for the other groups - could also be, at least in part, due to differing sample sizes for these groups. As the documentation page for this test (Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's multiple comparisons test applied post-hoc) in GraphPad Prism - the stats software used by the authors - cautions (my bolding):
If the P value is small, you can reject the idea that the difference is due to random sampling, and you can conclude instead that the populations have different distributions.
If the P value is large, the data do not give you any reason to conclude that the distributions differ. This is not the same as saying that the distributions are the same. Kruskal-Wallis test has little power.
And according to the author's figures 1 and 2, the test was indeed applied to groups with vastly differing sample sizes. And what's more, for one of them (BIPOC females) the difference in medians was actually larger than for white males:
Demographic group | median Primer index for "keep" outcomes |
median Primer index for "delete" outcomes |
group size (from figure 1) |
p-value (from figure 2) |
---|---|---|---|---|
White male | 12.00 | 8.00 | 419 | p = 0.0093 |
White female | ... | ... | 185 | ... |
BIPOC male | ... | ... | 171 | ... |
BIPOC female | ca. 14 | ca. 5.5 | 69 | p > 0.999 |
To be clear, the Kruska-Wallis test examines the entire sample (not just the sample medians), so it's theoretically possible for sample medians to differ more between groups A1 and A2 than between B1 and B2 while the test still finds a significant difference only for B1 vs B2 but not for A1 vs. A2. Either way though, I can't see how the conclusion that the authors draw from these p-values (This finding indicates ...
) can be statistically justified.
(Note about the table above: Since the paper's text only provide the median values for white males unless I overlooked something, the BIPOC female median values were glanced from figure 2. I may try to use WebPlotDigizer later to extract more precise values from that image, also for the other two groups. I'll also double-check whether the paper states the size of the kept/delete subgroups anywhere, since it appears that it's these 8 sample groups that the authors actually applied the Kruska-Wallis test to; which would exacerbate the sample size issues. - Unfortunately the authors have not published the code and data underlying their analysis, only vaguely offering that "Our code is available on GitHub upon reasonable request. We will also consider sharing data with other scholars looking at racial or gender inequality online."
Also, all this is leaving aside questions about whether this was really the best statistical test to use in this situation.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
AfC draft limbo
If anyone has the time and inclination to beef up a few left-behind AfC drafts on authors/academics, these people are very likely to be notable, but in this state, the articles won't likely be accepted. These are all by editors with few or no edits outside of these drafts, so I think declining them might mean they just hover in limbo for six months and then get speedy-deleted as expired.
- Draft:Růžena Dostálová
- Draft:Sylvia Patterson
- Draft:Sravana Borkataky-Varma
- Draft:Anna Spargo-Ryan
- Draft:Ania Malinowska
asilvering (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- And Draft:Sarah Pettit, who should absolutely have a Wikipedia article, but hopefully one sourced to things other than her obituaries... -- asilvering (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- The Daily News from Feb 12 1999 has a tiny bit on her hiring at Newsweek, and the NYT (via Atlanta Constitution, Dec 9 1997) has a slightly bigger piece on her ousting at Out. Other than that I couldn't find much beyond her being quoted a ton. JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikilibrary links die. Daily News,AJC, also this review of the magazine premier[11], and 3-part article quotes her a lot[12],[13],[14], Bay Area Reporter from 1996 article shows she took over as editor-in-Chief when Goff left. Numerous issues of the BAR in archive.org may have more info. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikilibrary links die.
Yeah I figured that was the case so I included the dates just in case. If you make a Newspapers account (to enable clipping) does it get linked to your Wikilibrary access? I was worried signing up would mess up my access (given the ongoing login verification issues at WL). JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)- JoelleJay, yes, the dates and paper names were helpful for finding them. I don't know the answer to your question. My subscription is from the Wikilibrary, but it isn't part of the bundle, it's an individual subscription. I am probably not explaining it well, because, you know, something technical. I applied, they approved it and I have to remember to renew it annually. SusunW (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikilibrary links die. Daily News,AJC, also this review of the magazine premier[11], and 3-part article quotes her a lot[12],[13],[14], Bay Area Reporter from 1996 article shows she took over as editor-in-Chief when Goff left. Numerous issues of the BAR in archive.org may have more info. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Draft:Ania Malinowska Book reviews I think is needed. She is notable. There should some really good ones, post structural analysis possibly, some analysis of the poetry would be ideal. I've advanced a couple of other ones to articles. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- One issue in the case of Pettit is simply that the refs were not formatted in a way that made clear how much secondary sourcing was in the entry. This is a real challenge since it’s understandable in both directions that new editors might not know how to do that properly (or why it’s so important), but it’s also a great deal of extra work for AfC reviewers to check the links individually. Thank you for flagging these drafts; it may be that our jumping in is really the only hope for trying to retain new editors who might get discouraged by a rejection and give up. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know about that - I think scopecreep understood the references fine and was just asking for more secondary coverage. I didn't want to accept it in that state either. The problem you describe certainly does happen, though. I just read a draft that hid notability-qualifying coverage in "external links" rather than a footnote. A perfectly reasonable place to put the info, from a new writer's perspective, but certainly not making things easy for reviewers. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure why their comment would reference the staff obit in assessing the sourcing unless they didn’t see the two other independent RS obituaries. Also for my money three independent RS obituaries is sufficient to accept a draft, that’s well above the 50% chance of passing AfD threshold IMO. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know about that - I think scopecreep understood the references fine and was just asking for more secondary coverage. I didn't want to accept it in that state either. The problem you describe certainly does happen, though. I just read a draft that hid notability-qualifying coverage in "external links" rather than a footnote. A perfectly reasonable place to put the info, from a new writer's perspective, but certainly not making things easy for reviewers. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- The Daily News from Feb 12 1999 has a tiny bit on her hiring at Newsweek, and the NYT (via Atlanta Constitution, Dec 9 1997) has a slightly bigger piece on her ousting at Out. Other than that I couldn't find much beyond her being quoted a ton. JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've improved and resubmitted the first one. I hope to get to the others. Thanks for highlighting these. @Netherzone, if you are looking for articles to work on....? CT55555(talk) 13:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping CT5, will have a look...seems like several are notable and have been resubmitted. Netherzone (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting and if I have some time, I'll work on those. Here's another one in draft limbo, which I finished recently--> Draft:Kara Eberle. I'm hoping it can become a page and moved to the mainspace. Historyday01 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- When you're finished improving a draft, make sure you hit the blue "resubmit" button! That adds it back to the AfC pile. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll do that, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- When you're finished improving a draft, make sure you hit the blue "resubmit" button! That adds it back to the AfC pile. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Here's another one: Draft:Georgia Black. Obviously notable early 20thc Black trans woman; drafter hasn't returned to address AfC comments. (Probably an undergrad who wrote this for a class.) Note that Black on Both Sides is a nonfiction work, not a novel. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Co-founder of one of the more important WikiProjects |
Victuallers |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning April 2, 2023 |
Victuallers' article creation efforts at WP:WIRED are a tour de force. He has created nearly 3,000 articles in total, personally tipping the imbalance of gender biographies towards equity. As a helpful collaborator, Victuallers provides advice to others (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red). In 2020, Victuallers created a biographical article about one woman every day for 360 days straight. Amazing! |
Recognized for |
WikiProject Women in Red |
Submit a nomination |
Congratulations to @Victuallers, Wikipedia's Editor of the Week. CT55555(talk) 13:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yay! I added the infobox Mujinga (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations!!! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- wobbly curtsey Victuallers (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations!!! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hooray! EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Like Congrats! ---Another Believer (Talk) 11:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Like Nice! Well-deserved. Penny Richards (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hurray @Victuallers Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Slow to the party, but well deserved, Roger! Congrats! SusunW (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good show, Victuallers! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations Roger, but I can't believe it's taken so long for you to be recognized here. Long before Women in Red, you were making hugely innovative progress when you introduced QRpedia (which has just enjoyed its 12th anniversary) and before that you contributed so much to Wikipedia in the UK. Those of us interested in the development of WiR remember you as the one who came up with that effective original idea of "Picking up more women". And today you seem to be more active than ever. Your efforts will not be forgotten.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you all and thankyou for the summary Ian. QRpedia seems to continue ticking. I'm thrilled that the Doomsday book, Bishop Tu Tus house, Nelson Mandelas house and Mahatma Gandhi's house all had QRpedia codes on them. Making Wikimedia UK into a charity and raising a million quid was cool, but to have co-started this project however is, I believe, going to make more of a lasting change. I'm still creating an article and keeping twitter fresh each day. This is a good cause. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Query about moving drafts to main space
As an inexperienced editor, I have always happily had help so far in moving my draft articles to main space. I would like to ask then, is it possible or even wise for me to learn how to move articles to main space myself, given that I have done a bit of editing now? Or is it much wiser to ask a very experienced person to check a draft first and then for them to accept it and to move it? And is this the right place to ask or should I go to the Tea House to ask? Thanks for your time and energy! Balance person (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Balance person it depends on how confident you are the draft meets the relevant notability guidelines. If you are finding there are generally no issues, then do feel free to move them article space (see WP:MOVE for instructions...its easy). However if you are unsure, getting a second eye is prudent. S0091 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your help S0091. I will give it a go and see what happens! Balance person (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Balance person: Asking here is fine. When we train editors we don't suggest that they submit draft articles. Articles get held there for months while the gatekeepers decide that the new article is almost but not "quite" right. (then wait a few more weeks for same answer). I publish my articles straight to main space, editors who are busy in real life use a sandbox to get together 100 words with three good refs (which is more than sufficient). If you ask at the here at the women in red talk page then someone will be pleased to give a cursory glance at a draft article.... but you should be aiming to throw away the stabilisers and go solo. Do come back here if you want a quick check. Hand holding is always available. We run an editathon (online) on the last Friday of every month in the UK's afternoon which in an hour takes ppl from newbies to published wiki authors. Victuallers (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Great to know about the Fridays as I have been wondering how anybody learns this stuff apart from lurking around the tea room, which I do, to pick up tips. Okay then courage in both hands I will have a go. Thanks! Balance person (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh Dear I have done something wrong! The title has User stuck to the front. Can you help? Sorry! Balance person (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- You need to click the namespace drop-down menu (the one that says "User") and change it to "(Article)". I've fixed it for you now. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Bless You! I was all hot and bothered! Balance person (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Just move it again (with the correct title this time), and tag the one with the bad title for deletion with WP:G7. pburka (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- You need to click the namespace drop-down menu (the one that says "User") and change it to "(Article)". I've fixed it for you now. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Just wondering about those last Friday of the month, one hour long, online training sessions that you mentioned. How would I find out about them and sign up? Are they via zoom or....? I could do with a bit of training. Balance person (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Balance person: here ... see you on Friday? Victuallers (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
question for the hive-mind
I've just finished a short stub on Audrey Sabol. Her birth date is listed as 1922 in two sources.[1][2] One source (Philadelphia Museum of Art)[3] lists her birth date as 1937 (which just happens to be the same birth year as Edward Ruscha0.
She is either 101 years old, or has no obituary, or was born in 1937. Any ideas welcome. Thanks WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I just had a similar situation crop up with a bio I was recently working on (Lucille C. Gunning). I was able to find obits for her husband and mother, but nothing for her. She used her maiden surname, Gunning, throughout her professional life, but her husband's surname was Blackwood. After fruitless searching on newspapers.com, I finally found Lucille's obit on Legacy.com, but it was under "Blackwood, Lucille." (Apparently, either the funeral home got it wrong, which is probably unlikely, or she used her married surname for her personal/later life and her maiden surname for her professional life, which is probably more likely.) She definitely died before reaching 100, though; so my hunch would be that your subject, Audrey Sabol, may also have already died. Not sure if any of this information is helpful or not, but you might try looking for obits of her family members to see if they provide any clues. (Obits of parents or siblings who died before or after her might give you clues for an approximate death date to help you narrow down your death year search, and might also give you other possible surnames under which Audrey's obit might have been listed.) - 47thPennVols (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks 47thPennVols! From what I've read, she was widely known as Mrs. Edward Sabol, or Audrey Sabol. I can't even find her maiden name. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I created a redirect from Lucille Blackwood yesterday. PamD 07:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Audrey Sabol papers, 1962-1967 | Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution". www.aaa.si.edu.
- ^ "Sabol, Audrey, 1922- - Social Networks and Archival Context". snaccooperative.org.
- ^ "Standard Station". philamuseum.org.
- 97th birthday, Thursday July 4, 2019, according to https://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/getting-a-break-from-the-madding-crowd/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Tagishsimon! Still with us as a centenarian :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely was born in 1922 and married Sabol in 1941. Her maiden name was Audrey Hope Siegel if that helps. SusunW (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Tagishsimon! Still with us as a centenarian :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
WIR Gender Studies & Health stub alert :)
If anyone is looking for an article that could use expansion...Regina Morantz-Sanchez is a longtime stub. It falls under both the WIR-262 (Gender Studies) and WIR-263 (Health)! She is a historian specializing in the history of women physicians in U.S. medicine. TJMSmith (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate Wikidata redlists
Hello. While adding lists from Category:Women in Red redlink lists (by dictionary) to the Redlist index, I found a couple of duplicate Wikidata redlists. There are 2 lists for A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography. There are also 2 lists for Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women. I was wondering if they could be merged together. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, MrLinkinPark333, for adding several items to our redlist index. It¨s good to have someone keeping an eye on things.--Ipigott (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi MrLinkinPark333 and thanks for what you're doing, particularly in noticing duplicates. I see what you mean.
- Regarding Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women, both Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/BDSW (11 columns) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women (7 columns) do draw from d:Q50395049. I think we should delete the one with fewer columns. Afterward, I'd favor renaming the "BDSW" redlist with the full dictionary name. Let's see what others think.
- 11 column list now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women. It's having 'killed by OS for overloading memory' issues, so it'll need some more work. The two lists found their subjects using different approaches (described by source; having an BDSW ID); I've combined both approaches into the redlist going forward. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi MrLinkinPark333 and thanks for what you're doing, particularly in noticing duplicates. I see what you mean.
- Regarding A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography (10 columns) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography (1857) (9 columns), both do draw from d:Q114693785. I think we should delete the one with fewer columns. Let's see what others think. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography (1857) (9 columns) redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography (10 columns, including a direct link to the cyclopedia entry). --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- As I pointed out when the Swedish listing was first added, I think we should give it its correct Swedish title: "Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon". As for which of the two should be deleted, I agree with Rosie that if neither presents updating difficulties, then the one with more columns should be maintained. But perhaps Tagishsimin has more experience with this kind of thing.--Ipigott (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ipigott, I think your recommendation to move it to the Swedish title makes sense: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tagishsimon, thank you for sorting all this out; appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
AfD & DYK discussion relating to a Gender Studies event nomination
Hello all. There is a discussion about Valentina Bodrug-Lungu and their DYK nomination here. Posted for information Lajmmoore (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- The subject has now been nominated for deletion Lajmmoore (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Polite request
Hello, I have drafted a page on Beverley Beech the UK birth activist who died recently. As I am not yet very experienced, I wonder if someone would take a look and see if it is in good enough shape yet or not. I am trying not to bother the same super helpful people I normally bother as I know you are so busy....so I am posting the request here! Thanks in advance for any help offered. Balance person (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Balance person: How are you? I've taken a look. I'll drop a comment on your talk page. The subject seems to be notable but the article needs some work, before it is posted. scope_creepTalk 10:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good to see how many contributors have been working on this. Looks to me as if it is now ready for article space.--Ipigott (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well done to everyone involved. I opened up the article to see what could be improved, but there is very little! Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good to see how many contributors have been working on this. Looks to me as if it is now ready for article space.--Ipigott (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Balance person: How are you? I've taken a look. I'll drop a comment on your talk page. The subject seems to be notable but the article needs some work, before it is posted. scope_creepTalk 10:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Image help request
Hi all. I just created an article on the Italian opera singer Maria Giustina Turcotti. Sadly much of the RS focuses on her weight during the latter part of the year; probably because of a well known caricature of her now in the Royal Collection which emphasizes her size (see here; it's also available in Commons) and the many nasty comments made about her weight in published criticism and in private letters by colleagues and employers. For example, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians doesn't mention a single opera she performed in but spends half the article quoting people on her weight. I wanted to smack the authors; particularly because she was one of the highest paid opera singers in Italy at the time and was a well known singer of her day. Therefore, I'd like to also include a more positive image of her for balance sake also found in the royal collection, see here. I am not savvy with copyright and loading images. Given the age of the work, I think it probably is no longer copyrighted. If anyone can help upload it to the English wiki or commons who knows the right copyright language I would appreciate it. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Working on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you!4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @4meter4: now uploaded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again. It is now in the article.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see this has now developed into an interesting and detailed biography.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ipigott Thank you so much for the nice compliment. I've enjoyed writing it. I still have a few more resources I want to read through, and I may expand it a little bit more.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of updating the lead image to the highest resolution one available. [15] also exists. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 10:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ipigott Thank you so much for the nice compliment. I've enjoyed writing it. I still have a few more resources I want to read through, and I may expand it a little bit more.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see this has now developed into an interesting and detailed biography.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again. It is now in the article.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @4meter4: now uploaded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you!4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Draft merge?
Please evaluate possibility for merging of Draft:Feminism, Divorce: Challenging Nigeria's Breadwinner Role in to the article Breadwinner model. Bookku (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- None of the references in the draft give sufficient information to trace the sources, so it would be difficult to justify merging any of the content. PamD 07:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Which kind of information you would look for? I can see citations there, am I missing on some thing?
- Verification and encyclopedic writing can be time consuming agreed.
- I seek inputs here cause draft seem to contain citations but write up looking on lines of a research paper. Bookku (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Completed redlists
Hello again. I was wondering what happens to completed redlists. Are they deleted or marked historical? The ones I'm wondering about are Afro-American encyclopaedia and Afro-American women in journalism. I found them at Category:Women in Red redlink lists (by dictionary). They were not completed by me. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good question. I would suggest the Afro-American encyclopaedia could be deleted as a redlist, especially as it is linked to the article on James T. Haley where there is access to the online version. As for Afro-American women in journalism, if there are new articles in other language versions of Wikipedia or simply new entries on Wikidata, the list could again become useful.--Ipigott (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd recommend keeping the Afro-American encyclopaedia redlist for two reasons: (a) it's linked on the #36 meetup page, e.g., it serves a historical purpose; and (b) somebody from another language Wikipedia might review the category that you're reviewing, MrLinkinPark333, see that we had such a redlist, and then recreate it in their language Wikipedia. Agree that it should be marked as being retained for historical purposes. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd love to see a list of completed lists. Its what of the things that drives me. Victuallers (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd recommend keeping the Afro-American encyclopaedia redlist for two reasons: (a) it's linked on the #36 meetup page, e.g., it serves a historical purpose; and (b) somebody from another language Wikipedia might review the category that you're reviewing, MrLinkinPark333, see that we had such a redlist, and then recreate it in their language Wikipedia. Agree that it should be marked as being retained for historical purposes. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Dr.Harsha Bhargavi Pandiri
Dr.Harsha Bhargavi Pandiri is a women who achieved many accolades in her career. Can someone write about her. I found good sources while doing Google her name. GM Nova (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- GM Nova: For biographies on Wikipedia, particularly those of living people, it is important to find good secondary sources, such as detailed coverage in newspapers and journals or in connection with awards. Those directly associated with the subject are not acceptable for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I just started the draft of Harsha Bhargavi Pandiri. Please contribute here if anyone has information about her. GM Nova (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Jess Wade now hitting the French headlines too
On 19/20 April, French news media including Bourse Direct, La Croix and TV5 Monde carried an extensive article by AFP's Anna Cuenca on Jess Wade titled "Sur Wikipédia, sortir les femmes scientifiques de l'ombre, page après page" (On Wikipedia, bringing women scientists out of the shade, page after page).--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Just seen that titled "The British physicist making women scientists visible online", the article was published on 20 April in English on sites including Phys Org and Yahoo News.--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
And while we're at it, on 19 April there was a long interview with Jess Wade in French on Indigo, titled "Rencontrez la personne qui a ajouté 1 767 scientifiques sous-représentés à Wikipédia" (Meet the woman who has added 1,767 under-represented scientists to Wikipedia).--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
WMF Project Rewrite on the gender gap
Maybe we have seen something along these lines before but much of this is new to me. Headed "Facts about the gender gap and how you can help close it", the presentation contains information added as recently as March 2023. Some of the "facts" are nevertheless rather strange, for example, under "Who is contributing to Wikimedia projects?" we read "... there was a modest increase in women contributors between 2019 (11.5%) and 2020 (15.0%)". Perhaps there is a case for working on this?--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I doubt this would be welcomed. It's clearly a well-polished recruitment drive ad rather than any serious attempt at analysis. The 18.5% figure of female/all humans on Wikidata is interesting though - en:wp is ahead, but not all that much. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- I was pleased to see SusunW, who has done more than any of us to write top quality articles in connection with the gender gap, was specifically mentioned under "Project Rewrite checklist", "Read inspiring stories", as "SusunW is on a mission to write women into history with Wikipedia".--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- As our Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Needs improvement is linked to the presentation, we should perhaps check it through, add more info together with sources, etc., and remove names which have already received attention.--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- This has now been updated. New additions welcome.--Ipigott (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I was pleased to see SusunW, who has done more than any of us to write top quality articles in connection with the gender gap, was specifically mentioned under "Project Rewrite checklist", "Read inspiring stories", as "SusunW is on a mission to write women into history with Wikipedia".--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I started Draft:Kathy Ceceri, an interesting author and educator. I would be happy to have help in adding newspaper coverage of her and her books. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Guam History is up for deletion on notability.
Women in Guam History. Any help would be appreciated. I did give an answer on the article's talk page, but a little support over there might help. As a woman, I am deeply offended that the nominator doesn't think these Guam women are notable. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Just a friendly reminder that neutrally-worded notifications of deletion discussions to the discussion pages of affected Wikigroups are normal and ok, but that requests that encourage contributors to take one side or the other of a deletion discussion violate WP:CANVASS. Fortunately, this is not yet a deletion discussion, just an already-removed prod. So the help that is currently needed is to strengthen the article, either to ward off a full deletion discussion or to make the case for keeping the article if it comes to a full discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reminder. Freedom4U has just mentioned on the talk page that he is now taking this to AFD. What he doesn't seem to like is the style or format of it, or you'll have to read on the talk page. It isn't specifically Guam, apparently. He doesn't like these lists. Or something like that. — Maile (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, as a friendly reminder, I use they/it pronouns (which you can see in my signature). Again, my deletion nomination has nothing to do with the style/format of the article, but the fact that there are no reliable secondary sourcing discussing the list in question. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reminder. Freedom4U has just mentioned on the talk page that he is now taking this to AFD. What he doesn't seem to like is the style or format of it, or you'll have to read on the talk page. It isn't specifically Guam, apparently. He doesn't like these lists. Or something like that. — Maile (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in Guam History. Whatever ... — Maile (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- The AFD has now closed as a Keep. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Despite the closure of the AfD, there are still plenty of redlinks on the list of women featured in this book, many of whom are likely notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
a record?
Best Wishes all. I've been writing a new article each day since 2022. Yesterday I noticed that there was a google doodle but the woman mentioned was a woman in red (That should not happen). So she became the new article and I see it had over 75,000 reads yesterday. I suspect this might be a record for a new Women in Red article. Victuallers (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Impressive. And the new article every day since 2022. scope_creepTalk 08:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps the Google doodler deliberately chose a woman without an en wiki article, albeit the pl wiki article was started in 2006. TSventon (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- That had occurred to me. Google does not give wiki the number one return that it used to and they may have been experimenting. Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Incredible! — Maile (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well done! Yesterday and the many previous! Innisfree987 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Incredible! — Maile (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- That had occurred to me. Google does not give wiki the number one return that it used to and they may have been experimenting. Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps the Google doodler deliberately chose a woman without an en wiki article, albeit the pl wiki article was started in 2006. TSventon (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Impressive. And the new article every day since 2022. scope_creepTalk 08:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
-
- For Zofia Nasierowska's biography and its 75,000 views, and for all the new articles you've started each day since 2022 → 👏👏👏 --Rosiestep (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's really cool Victuallers. Yesterday Lamona posted the NYT feature "Overlooked No More" that ran on the 23rd on Elizabeth Wagner Reed. It picked up 682 views. No where near your record here, but clearly shows that the media has influence. I was glad to see her work on women scientists acknowledged and it reminded me of all of the editors in WiR who helped write articles on the 22 women in science she discovered. I am thankful you and Rosie created this project and that the editors here are so supportive of each other. SusunW (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations from me too, Roger. Whatever the Google doodle tie-up, you were obviously ready to follow up on the English wiki. Now we just need to post her as a DYK winner too.--Ipigott (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well done, Victuallers! Great work. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It's very overexposed, so this isn't passing FPC, but I'm kind of proud of it. Found it while poking around the interesting women in File:Artistas protestam contra a Ditadura Militar - Tônia Carreiro, Eva Wilma, Odete Lara, Norma Bengell e Cacilda Becker - Restoration.jpg. The line across her face in the original was worth removing for her sake, even if the image has some issues still. On a Women-in-Red note, Portuguese Wikipedia has a lot of articles on her films. A glance through its usages on pt-wiki might inspire something. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 11:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- What a fabulous photograph! Overexposed or not, it's lovely, and I appreciate the work you do. SusunW (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aye. Just there are some things that are FP-quality and let me get the relevant articles on the main page. The extra exposure is a bonus, but it's often still worth doing things that aren't going to get that bonus. Norma Bengell deserves not to have a line through her face in the best image we have of her Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 13:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- FP shown on a dozen or so wikis but no article on the en:wiki? Great for first bit Adam, well done. No article on en:wiki?? Thats not right Victuallers (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- You mean the protest? Aye. We cover the 1964-85 Brazillian military dictatorship very badly to start with, I'm not surprised that a lot of stuff's missing. Norma Bengell - and Tônia Carrero, Eva Wilma, Odete Lara, and Cacilda Becker - all have articles, but they're pretty bare bones, and, at the least, Norma Bengell has a ton of films she directed that we don't cover. I'd presume women-created works are equally of interest to Women in Red. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden: Great restoration. As for our coverage of Brazilian actresses, many of our biographies may be a bit thin but we actually have 371 compared to only 309 in Portuguese. You may be right that the article on Bengell could be improved on the basis of the Portuguese but at least I see there's a link to IMDb which lists all her appearances and the films she has directed, etc. Maybe now you've brought this up. someone will go ahead and improve her biography but on this occasion I hope someone more interested in film will step in. As our coverage of film actresses is better than any other category of women, I prefer to work on more specialized performers such as opera singers and ballet dancers, many of whom are still missing. I've looked into our coverage of the military dictatorship. For a start, our article Military dictatorship in Brazil looks pretty good to me (although it needs improvements in referencing) and thanks to you contains the image of Bengell and other actresses. You include the same image in Censorship under the military dictatorship in Brazil. I see we also have 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. Perhaps you could be more specific on what you think is missing or could be improved.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- You mean the protest? Aye. We cover the 1964-85 Brazillian military dictatorship very badly to start with, I'm not surprised that a lot of stuff's missing. Norma Bengell - and Tônia Carrero, Eva Wilma, Odete Lara, and Cacilda Becker - all have articles, but they're pretty bare bones, and, at the least, Norma Bengell has a ton of films she directed that we don't cover. I'd presume women-created works are equally of interest to Women in Red. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- FP shown on a dozen or so wikis but no article on the en:wiki? Great for first bit Adam, well done. No article on en:wiki?? Thats not right Victuallers (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aye. Just there are some things that are FP-quality and let me get the relevant articles on the main page. The extra exposure is a bonus, but it's often still worth doing things that aren't going to get that bonus. Norma Bengell deserves not to have a line through her face in the best image we have of her Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 13:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Training? - chat? - 60 editathons?? last Friday of each month
At 1 pm UK time on the last Friday of every month there is a free training session hosted by Ewan McAndrew at (and on-line) in the University of Edinburgh Library. There have been about sixty so far. We get people joining us from Spain, Norway, New York and in one case a bleary eyed Californian. Its all very laid back, you turn up and leave when you like. The cleverest thing is that at 1:15 we can have a newbie on line and within an hour they have created their first wikipedia article. There are several regulars including me. Badged with "Women in Red" there is Lots of stuff about suffragettes, witches, scots and wikidata. Edinburgh Uni encourages students as well with an Edinburgh Award based around a researched Wikipedia article. The link is here. All welcome obvs. Victuallers (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks for alerting me to these events. I hope to do the one in May as I am already booked for this April day. Looking forward very much to the training. Balance person (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Victuallers, for letting us know about these regular training sessions. I must say your Edinburgh Workshop Page provides many useful links to those who are keen to learn more about Wikipedia editing. I was wondering if we should not add this or something similar to one or more of our essays. I think it's the first time I have seen it myself and it could prove useful to other newcomers.--Ipigott (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- The work at Ed Uni is amazing. Ewan has been there for some years and his boss and his assistants are very helpful. These are not my pages but his or theirs. Ewan has won awards for his work including a Woman in Red Barnstar. He is currently advertising for another assistant. I'm sure he'd be pleased if we (re)used the stuff with attribution and links. Victuallers (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, Stinglehammer has been doing a wonderful job with all this. It looks to me as if the first few sections of the page (i.e. down to "Training guides") would be really useful to newbies as well as to those organizing editathons and similar events. While the rest is certainly interesting, it could be counter-productive to provide too much information to those not specifically involved in the Edinburgh workshops. I therefore have two suggestions. We could either include a link to the page as it is in one or more of our essays, e.g. the Primer or the Ten Simple Rules, or with the help of Stinglehammer and the Edinburgh team we could encourage a few minor adaptations to make it an essay in its own right. Perhaps we could do both. In the meantime, I have included it under "Tools and lists" on my own user page and will bring it to the attention of any new WiR members who seem to need this kind of assistance. It might also be useful to include a word about it under our Announcements.--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
An editor on the Talk page of this draft is asking for help in getting an article on this academic accepted. I've added an interview in External Links but can't find much else to add - pretty sure Gough is notable but I'm not experienced in WP:NACADEMIC so if anyone else can respond, that would be great - thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- All other things aside, she was "awarded an Order of Australia Medal for her services to tertiary education and environmental education" and NACADEMIC 2 says "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". That criteria can be read in a number of different ways, but can easily be construed to cover the sitation of someone who is awarded a national honour for her academic work.
- However, from the comments on the AfC, reviewers seem mainly to be having issues of tone and referencing. References must evidence the statement they're attached to. Exceptional claims must have exceptional referencing. I've not looked in detail to see whether the reviewers comments have been addressed since the date on which they were made, but if they have then it would be fair to promote this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- There are also a few inline external links, used as references ... they need attending to. I checked out the lead, and find ref 4 supports 'pioneering', so I do think we're good for notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, @Billyboybliss:: see above. The article will be promoted, but ideally the above comments will be addressed. I'll look back in on this in a few hours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Tacyarg: Most of the references from the "Professional works" section are her own publications. It would be more appropriate to remove these and include a small selection of them in a "Selected publications" section. For an academic it's usual to include their uni profile page as an External link: she still has one, and I've added it. Google Scholar link too. PamD 21:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is stilla couple of bareurls on the article + 1 or 2 raw search url citations that need updated. scope_creepTalk 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- The Professional works section is a car-crash :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've promoted it too quickly. I figured at the end of the day it would be quick promotion, but it needs a lot of work. scope_creepTalk 21:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if its worth sending it back for a few days to be rewritten? scope_creepTalk 21:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed a section which was just a hook for academic paper refs, subject matter now covered in the select publications section. I think it's okay to leave it promoted. It would benefit from some more experienced eyes, but it will do until then. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- The quoted phrase "as she becomes posthuman" is intriguing! What does it mean? I first thought it a euphemism for ageing/dying, but it's from a 2010 book so she was only 60. Artificial hip etc, or what? Puzzling. PamD 05:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- There might be COI here: the editor has contributed to no other articles and seems to have information not found in the sources given. PamD 07:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- PamD, the Weaver book on the posthuman (via Google books) mentions a breast implant. TSventon (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- @PamD: I noticed that as well. I couldn't find anything to verify various assertions and blocks. There is a COI. She is absolutely notable but there is virtually nothing that is not primary. One reference possibly. Today it's either going to go to back to Afc or be cut to a stub, mentioning her academic career, the A0 i.e. what is verifiable with a list of top cited papers. I can't do anything with it at the moment. scope_creepTalk 10:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed a section which was just a hook for academic paper refs, subject matter now covered in the select publications section. I think it's okay to leave it promoted. It would benefit from some more experienced eyes, but it will do until then. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- The Professional works section is a car-crash :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is stilla couple of bareurls on the article + 1 or 2 raw search url citations that need updated. scope_creepTalk 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Tacyarg: Most of the references from the "Professional works" section are her own publications. It would be more appropriate to remove these and include a small selection of them in a "Selected publications" section. For an academic it's usual to include their uni profile page as an External link: she still has one, and I've added it. Google Scholar link too. PamD 21:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, @Billyboybliss:: see above. The article will be promoted, but ideally the above comments will be addressed. I'll look back in on this in a few hours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- There are also a few inline external links, used as references ... they need attending to. I checked out the lead, and find ref 4 supports 'pioneering', so I do think we're good for notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Books
I've just added this year's shortlisted titles to List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners: there are two red-linked books by blue-linked writers, and three red-linked books by red-linked writers, in case anyone is looking for a book to write about. (The 6th one, a blue-linked title by a blue-linked writer, is Barbara Kingsolver's Demon Copperhead). Being shortlisted doesn't confer notability, but those titles are likely to have had enough reviews in WP:RS to qualify. PamD 08:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- I realize this is a UK award for books but perhaps it should be listed in List of awards honoring women.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is listed in List of media awards honoring women but not List of awards honoring women, which excludes media awards. TSventon (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @TSventon Thanks for the reminder: I've added Women's Prize for Non-Fiction to that list, although it won't be awarded till next year. PamD 11:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is listed in List of media awards honoring women but not List of awards honoring women, which excludes media awards. TSventon (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2023
Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Cheryl McKissack Daniel
Hi, I'm looking for help with Draft:Cheryl McKissack Daniel. Cheryl is the President & CEO of the construction company McKissack & McKissack, one of the largest minority and woman-owned construction and design companies in the US. I submitted the draft for review at Articles for Creation on behalf of McKissack & McKissack as I have a conflict of interest as an employee of the company. Unfortunately, the editor who reviewed the draft declined it. In my estimation, she does have good media coverage and recognition as a female and minority leader in the construction industry. I'd love a second set of eyes for thoughts on what might be missing or any improvements I can make, or perhaps to look again at the existing references. Karen at McKissack (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Karen at McKissack: I see there is a detailed article on McKissack & McKissack which has been under development since 2011. It seems to me that much of the information in your draft could serve to document the more recent history of the firm. In general, Wikipedia does not encourage new biographies which are drafted by those who are closely associated with the subject, especially if they are being paid for their efforts. Perhaps a first step would therefore be to make some suggestions on the talk page of M & M on key developments which could be included, with appropriate citations. One of the recent contributors such as PigeonChickenFish may then be ready to follow up on improvements. That is not to say that others may be ready to work on your biography, making it less promotional and more objective.--Ipigott (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Karen at McKissack: I'm pleased to see that you have indeed been making suggestions on M & M talk page, most of which have been followed up. It would therefore seem reasonable to continue.--Ipigott (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The editorial politics of Wikipedia
I find the experience of editing on Wikipedia so tiring sometimes. The only agenda I have here is to make knowledge about people who were born outside of the English speaking word and without a penis, but whom have nonetheless made a significant contribution to humanity, more accessible.
So today I made a new entry about a Slovak female astronomer who was the first Slovak to discover a minor planet and was a faculty member at a major national university for some 20 + years. Because she lived before the internet became widespread, I went to an actual library and collected high quality secondary sources about the subject. My article thus refers to a printed encyclopedia as well as to an obituary published in an astronomy magazine, written by the head of the Slovak Astronomical Society as well as an online list of alumni of the university where she studied. All clearly non-biased, secondary sources completely independent of the subject.
A short while later my article gets tagged "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies..." blah, blah, blah. No explanation what the problem actually is. The editor who added the tag has a deletionist rant on his user page about how this place needs to be purged of all content he does not consider to be in line with his own ideas about what an encyclopedia is. In addition to removing other peoples' work his agenda seems to consist mostly of "mapping all populated places in Arizona", that is creating articles about hamlets with six houses. Obviously these are all notable topics, unlike some lady who discovered celestial objects but failed to be an American and thus is of no relevance for the world.
This is not the first time this happened either. Not long ago I created an article about young Romani actress who played main characters in several shows aired in the prime time on several national television channels. The article was sent to draft by a Pakistani editor whose own articles routinely use twitter posts as their sole source. The man clearly does not speak a word in Slovak or has any understanding whatsoever of the Slovak culture or society. I resubmitted the article, after few weeks it was rejected by a British editor. Unlike the previous one, at least he provided a reason - he google translated titles of some sources and they seemed to him to be "introductory in nature". These are actually articles in mainstream, non-tabloid outlets. I found even more sources and have been patiently waiting for another review for weeks now.
About a month earlier I created an article about a former government minister who served as an MP in the national parliament for 10 years. It was tagged as potentially not meeting the notability guidelines of a website that hosts hundreds of profiles of Soundcloud rappers. Again no explanation, nothing.
I try not to take things personally, respect the rules of this place and i am thankful to all experienced editors who give me feedback to my work. But sometimes I wish this place was not so obsessed with deleting all content that is not about old, dead, white men from the English speaking world. Newklear007 (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Newklear007. I've gone ahead and marked the article as reviewed and have removed the tag, as she is likely notable via her entry in a national biography. Curbon7 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you.:( Newklear007 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- 2 points: WP:POLITICIAN says "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" are presumed to be notable. Your last sentence is ridiculous, and rather offensive. But many taggers do not know our policies. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, I apologize. Newklear007 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- No need to apologize Newklear007, I was just writing something in draft yesterday saying much the same thing as you are saying here. You weren't saying all content about "old, dead, white men from the English speaking world" should be deleted and we all know it's true as Johnbod points out that some of them were notable politicians and judges; you were saying you wished wikipedia could include more content about other people who are notable too, taken from the rest of the world's diverse population. Mujinga (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, I apologize. Newklear007 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, how did I know it would be Onel. They've been taken to ANI repeatedly for their terrible tagging and deleting. But their deletionist friends always defend them and give excuses and we go around the wheel all over again. It's a cycle. An annoying one. SilverserenC 14:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Newklear007 I used to be able to look at how many edits and how many articles an editor created, but with this new format I cannot figure out how to do that. So, my best advice to you is not to send articles to AfC, ever. It isn't a required process for people who are signed in and have a certain edit count. You can post a draft here or ask an editor you trust to look at it if you aren't confident in moving it to mainspace yourself. I always try to remember that not every editor is a good collaborator, so rather than allowing it to frustrate me, I ask someone I know is a good collaborator to assess my work. I agree that writing on WP is hard and learning the processes is insanely difficult, but that's why we have this page to help each other. Good luck. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I'd suggest rather than working on your draft articles in draftspace, you should work on them in your personal userspace. So for you, that would be User:Newklear007/Article name which prevents them from being subject to the automatic 6 month deletion with no edits procedure. As SusanW said, all forms of draftspace and AfC should be avoided. SilverserenC 16:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Both good suggestions. Afc is volunteering to be a target. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Newklear007, I am so glad to know you. I agree 100% with the suggestions above. It will take unnecessary stress off your mind and allow you to be the Rainbow that you are and share your colours with the world through the editing of subjects you are interested in. Creativity flourishes when it is given the room to grow and our policies should be protection for that development so long as it meets the basic requirements for inclusion much like my greenhouses protect my plants from the harsh climate. --ARoseWolf 16:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I also agree with Susun's suggestion to avoid AfC and draft space. I would more strongly avoid using your personal userspace as well, because too many well-meaning editors will take drafts in personal userspace and move them to draftspace and subject them to all the problematic behavior your new articles have been subjected to. Instead, I create all my new articles off-Wikipedia, and then only put them onto Wikipedia when they are fully written. You can use your sandbox without saving for previewing the article appearance if you need to. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- How are they even finding userspace pages? I routinely write drafts in my userspace (i.e. User:pburka/Some page in progress) and have never been disturbed there. If someone started moving around pages in my userspace without asking me first, I'd be furious. pburka (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm surprised too. I've had several userspace articles around for years. Just never got back around to working on them. SilverserenC 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- We definitely have editors moving other people's userpages into draftspace, but maybe that mainly happens when an article-submission is made for the userpage; see e.g. Special:Diff/1139411635 or Special:Diff/1126289008. Technically, the WP:CSD#G13 six-month timeout applies to userspace drafts, not just to drafts in draftspace. And we had significant controversy in WP:AN and WP:ANI maybe four years back when a prolific mathematics contributor wanted to hold onto what certain editors thought of as too many drafts, resisted those editors' attempts to eliminate the drafts by redirecting them to sort-of-related topics, and got topic-banned for resisting. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, good to know because I have a LOT of userspace drafts, and perhaps its time to move at least some of those off Wikipedia until they are ready. Historyday01 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- G13 should only apply if you've put an AFC template on the userspace draft. pburka (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- May I just add that there can be advantages to preparing new drafts in user space rather than off wiki. I frequently try to assist less experienced editors improve their drafts but cannot do so if they are not accessible. One way of seeing what new or potential members have been doing is to look at their contributions, which frequently include draft creations in sandboxes. A user space draft can then be created and then moved to article space after a few minor improvements. It seems to me that for most new contributors the risk of having a draft deleted six months later is not too significant. The most important thing is to avoid AfC-related delays and refusals and encourage them to become successful contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's fair. At least half of my drafts are in the notes stage, so I don't think it would be a problem. Historyday01 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- May I just add that there can be advantages to preparing new drafts in user space rather than off wiki. I frequently try to assist less experienced editors improve their drafts but cannot do so if they are not accessible. One way of seeing what new or potential members have been doing is to look at their contributions, which frequently include draft creations in sandboxes. A user space draft can then be created and then moved to article space after a few minor improvements. It seems to me that for most new contributors the risk of having a draft deleted six months later is not too significant. The most important thing is to avoid AfC-related delays and refusals and encourage them to become successful contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- G13 should only apply if you've put an AFC template on the userspace draft. pburka (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, good to know because I have a LOT of userspace drafts, and perhaps its time to move at least some of those off Wikipedia until they are ready. Historyday01 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- We definitely have editors moving other people's userpages into draftspace, but maybe that mainly happens when an article-submission is made for the userpage; see e.g. Special:Diff/1139411635 or Special:Diff/1126289008. Technically, the WP:CSD#G13 six-month timeout applies to userspace drafts, not just to drafts in draftspace. And we had significant controversy in WP:AN and WP:ANI maybe four years back when a prolific mathematics contributor wanted to hold onto what certain editors thought of as too many drafts, resisted those editors' attempts to eliminate the drafts by redirecting them to sort-of-related topics, and got topic-banned for resisting. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm surprised too. I've had several userspace articles around for years. Just never got back around to working on them. SilverserenC 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- How are they even finding userspace pages? I routinely write drafts in my userspace (i.e. User:pburka/Some page in progress) and have never been disturbed there. If someone started moving around pages in my userspace without asking me first, I'd be furious. pburka (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I also agree with Susun's suggestion to avoid AfC and draft space. I would more strongly avoid using your personal userspace as well, because too many well-meaning editors will take drafts in personal userspace and move them to draftspace and subject them to all the problematic behavior your new articles have been subjected to. Instead, I create all my new articles off-Wikipedia, and then only put them onto Wikipedia when they are fully written. You can use your sandbox without saving for previewing the article appearance if you need to. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Newklear007, I am so glad to know you. I agree 100% with the suggestions above. It will take unnecessary stress off your mind and allow you to be the Rainbow that you are and share your colours with the world through the editing of subjects you are interested in. Creativity flourishes when it is given the room to grow and our policies should be protection for that development so long as it meets the basic requirements for inclusion much like my greenhouses protect my plants from the harsh climate. --ARoseWolf 16:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Both good suggestions. Afc is volunteering to be a target. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I'd suggest rather than working on your draft articles in draftspace, you should work on them in your personal userspace. So for you, that would be User:Newklear007/Article name which prevents them from being subject to the automatic 6 month deletion with no edits procedure. As SusanW said, all forms of draftspace and AfC should be avoided. SilverserenC 16:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Newklear007 I used to be able to look at how many edits and how many articles an editor created, but with this new format I cannot figure out how to do that. So, my best advice to you is not to send articles to AfC, ever. It isn't a required process for people who are signed in and have a certain edit count. You can post a draft here or ask an editor you trust to look at it if you aren't confident in moving it to mainspace yourself. I always try to remember that not every editor is a good collaborator, so rather than allowing it to frustrate me, I ask someone I know is a good collaborator to assess my work. I agree that writing on WP is hard and learning the processes is insanely difficult, but that's why we have this page to help each other. Good luck. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Newklear007 It looks like you are doing excellent work. Thank you for writing articles on some interesting women. I would encourage you not to get discouraged. If/when similar problems arise in future, just remember you can always bring these issues here to WIR. The editors here are very supportive and well versed in wikipedia's policies. When an article is clearly well written with supporting sources that meet our notability guidelines (as your articles appear to be), this group will have your back. Inevitably wikipedia's open door policy to all editors (which is both a strength and a weakness) means that at times as an editing community we have to deal with problems like these. That's one reason why WIR exists, to provide support for editors like yourself. I would suggest not to take it personally, and just keep calm and bring it here and let us help you. In the end, policy based arguments usually win the day, and you are clearly editing within wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and making valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.
- On a side note, if editors here want to take a look at Draft:Alžbeta Ferencová for Newklear007 that would be helpful. I took a cursory look, and I feel its a border line call in favor of moving it into mainspace, but would appreciate a second opinion. There is in-depth coverage, but largely in the context of interviews with the subject which lack independence. Some of the other articles appear highly promotional. I do think she passes WP:NACTRESS criteria 1, and that overall the coverage is significant enough to pass WP:BASIC. I just wish there was a source that was obviously independent and not a puff piece on the actress which is something not currently in evidence. She's young, so it might be difficult to locate that type of RS for someone this early in her career. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've fixed up all the references and added a bit more content. I think she easily meets notability requirements, since coverage of her is extremely consistent across all Slovakian media going back 15 years. She just has a very varied job history that makes it hard to summarize, reminding me a lot of Yara Salman. SilverserenC 19:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Welcome template
Does WiR have a talk page welcome template? If so, could someone give me a link? If not, it would be really helpful for someone to make one! -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Asilvering: I personally welcome all new members, adapting my welcome to their previous experience (if any). You may remember I welcomed you on your talk page on 23 November 2021. I also frequently suggest membership to those who could contribute to the project. Maybe this kind of approach is not what the project requires. If so, let's work on improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- What I'm looking for is a welcome message for people who aren't in the project yet and might be interested. In particular, I tend to want to do this after declining AfC drafts made by editors who have clearly done competent work, but have problems like finding appropriate sources, showing notability, using footnotes the way Wikipedia editors expect, etc - basically, good writers who just haven't learned "Wikipedia" itself yet. There are a set of canned welcome messages for various Wikiprojects in Twinkle; that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. If it could be done with a tone like "we're here to reduce barriers to new editor participation", that would be especially ideal. I find a lot of the AfC decline messages are a bit patronizing to dump on someone who is obviously themselves a historian. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- And yes, I do remember your kind welcome. And I think you should keep doing that! :) -- asilvering (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Asilvering: We have Template:WikiProject Women in Red invite which encourages people to join the project. You might like to develop a more detailed invitation for the particular cases you have in mind. We could also add a few more explanations about the help our project offers to newbies on our main Women in Red page or on our New members page. There, for example, we could have:
- "Welcome to WikiProject Women in Red (WiR). Our objective is to turn red links into blue ones. Our scope is women's biographies – real and fictional – as well as women's works, broadly construed. We are always ready to help those who are experiencing difficulties in having their articles accepted or who need assistance in connection with the technicalities of Wikipedia editing." (Now added to Template:Women in Red new members header.)
- Maybe you could improve on this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link! I'll see about getting it added to Twinkle for extra convenience. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: I think your idea of telling AfC proposers that "there is a project who would provide support to you in developing articles about notable women" sounds like a great one. We need to be a place of nurture for the enthusiastic. Victuallers (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link! I'll see about getting it added to Twinkle for extra convenience. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe you could improve on this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Asilvering: I've also adapted the invitation template to include "...and assisting contributors who run into difficulties." I think it will therefore now be suitable for those who face problems at AfC or who experience difficulties with their early creations. Let's hope it will be used more widely as we certainly need to increase the project's membership. In my own experience, most of those I encourage to join, actually sign up. KylieTastic may be interested in these developments.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Francesca Minerva, co-founder of the Journal of Controversial Ideas
I recently created a draft for Italian philosopher Francesca Minerva, a co-founder of the Journal of Controversial Ideas. I’m not sure if she meets the notability threshold. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- One book is seldom enough by itself to get a scholar over the wiki-notability bar. We usually look for multiple books, each of which has received multiple reviews in scholarly publications (say, found in JSTOR). The Journal of Controversial Ideas is barely two years old and doesn't appear to be a flagship journal of philosophy, so I don't think we could argue for wiki-notability on those grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think the way to notability would be GNG. She’s gotten a bit of press over the last the years. Not sure if it stacks up to meet notability yet. Thriley (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think thats likely, however at the mo just re-directing her name at the journal article would achieve 90% of the info about her. Is there some more stuff about her? Is there a generously licensed portrait of her? Victuallers (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think the way to notability would be GNG. She’s gotten a bit of press over the last the years. Not sure if it stacks up to meet notability yet. Thriley (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red supporter on Sky Sports
"Wheres Russo?" Sky Sports profiled Lewes FC including Women in Red Barnstar winner James Boyes at the end of March. James has donated 1000s of images of leading women soccer players and they add the vital picture to making these people visible. Victuallers (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Four in one!
I was looking at the redlists for WIR 269 (Education) and skimming through Crowd-sourced educators looking for someone interesting from a CEE country for a double hit ... I found the Polish Wanda Szuman, who would also count as "U,V,W", and then later found that she was a pioneer of special education so ticks the "disability" box too! Not a great stub as I don't read Polish and can't find a portrait (I'm a bit hazy about the special dispensation for using copyright images when it's a dead person so no chance of getting a new picture - if you know we can use the one from here please do so!) but I have included a few snippets of information which seem reliably sourced with the help of Google Translate, and she was obviously an amazing woman - and lived to 104.
But looking at the Polish article raises interesting questions: as I understand it, we are "allowed" to make an exact, attributed, translation of an article from another Wikipedia. But a lot of this one is unsourced. So even if I was confident of the Polish, would I be allowed to add, for example, the list of honours, which don't seem to be in the sources? We don't allow other Wikipedias as WP:RS, but there seems to be a different approach if we're translating. Anyway, I've stuck to what I can source with confidence. PamD 12:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Great find PamD! According to this she has a biography in the Polish Biographical Dictionary, but I cannot access it from here. The links just spin forever, perhaps you can access Polskiego Słownika Biograficznego? Or perhaps Piotrus can help? SusunW (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @SusunW I'll see what I can do. Found a good source: [16]. Not OCRed, sadly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect chance to use the tip of the month! Phone + google translate + camera = translation. (or convert it to OCR with https://www.pdf2go.com/ SusunW (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Given the bad scan quality this may be challenging, fortunatel I can read badly scanned Polish. I'll try to use this article as a source. As for PSB, sadly, their webpage has issues (it does open, but is very slow, I've been stuck at their search for ~10 minutes, and I can't even confirm they have her biography online) and in either case it's very selective (most entries are nota available on it due to copyright...). Realistically if we want a PSB entry I'd have to ask someone in Poland to scan it from a library :( Good news is that that are quite a few other rreliable sources about her, although not all of them are online. Here's an OCRed academic article (in Polish) about her family [17]. And Here's another biography from a regional Polish biographical dictionary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Ps. I got to [18] which suggests her biography is not available online from PSB (at least now). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- PPS. The badly scanned article is just a review of an entire book about her, which is fortunately available online - if in Polish: [19]. I've added all good sources I found to the article as refs. Note that there are mor sources, but possibly not online, ex. from the bibliography of said badly scanned article: Kossakowski (1980), Łapicz (1997) and Wałęga (2005). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Given the bad scan quality this may be challenging, fortunatel I can read badly scanned Polish. I'll try to use this article as a source. As for PSB, sadly, their webpage has issues (it does open, but is very slow, I've been stuck at their search for ~10 minutes, and I can't even confirm they have her biography online) and in either case it's very selective (most entries are nota available on it due to copyright...). Realistically if we want a PSB entry I'd have to ask someone in Poland to scan it from a library :( Good news is that that are quite a few other rreliable sources about her, although not all of them are online. Here's an OCRed academic article (in Polish) about her family [17]. And Here's another biography from a regional Polish biographical dictionary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Ps. I got to [18] which suggests her biography is not available online from PSB (at least now). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect chance to use the tip of the month! Phone + google translate + camera = translation. (or convert it to OCR with https://www.pdf2go.com/ SusunW (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @SusunW I'll see what I can do. Found a good source: [16]. Not OCRed, sadly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- PamD: Where exactly did you discover that we are allowed to make an "exact, attributed, translation of an article from another Wikipedia"? I never include anything in my "translated" articles unless I can find the kind of sources which would be valid for any article created on the EN wiki (but perhaps I've been spending hours looking for sources in other languages when a literal translation would have been accepted). As for photos of people who are no longer with us, I don't think I have ever included any which would not qualify for Commons although from time to time I see some in articles created by SusunW. To return to the translation problem, perhaps we could request explanations from Rosiestep who often includes literal translations, or from Dr. Blofeld who pioneered Intertranswiki.--Ipigott (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Ipigott That was an unsourced statement of mine, just what I think is the case! But I'm also confused about our attitude to whether or not we trust machine translation - the tip to photo and use Google translate gets us the gist of the article, or the broad subject topic, but I wouldn't want to use it for anything more except the odd short phrase here and there (eg I used Google translate for her date of birth as I don't know the months in Polish). PamD 14:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- My understanding is that we can freely translate text from other Wikipedias, because they all use the same license. That is, we don't need to worry about rewriting in our own words. But we still need to follow EN wiki's notability and sourcing guidelines. pburka (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Pburka But just as for WP:Copying within Wikipedia we need to acknowledge the work done by other editors and can't just copy, or translate, their work without attributing it. See Help:Translation#License requirements. PamD 15:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- My understanding is that we can freely translate text from other Wikipedias, because they all use the same license. That is, we don't need to worry about rewriting in our own words. But we still need to follow EN wiki's notability and sourcing guidelines. pburka (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Ipigott Well, I suppose my source is the text you get if you click "show" in the "Expand from other language" template, as currently showing on Wanda Szuman. "Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations", OK, but then "translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate", so accurate is good, and then "Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.", but no mention of what to do about unsourced content. There's a bit more at Help:Translation, including "If portions of an article appear to be low-quality or unverifiable, use your judgment and do not translate those portions."
- I'll stick to trying to find English-language sources or using minimal snippets of information, though the result, as here, is not a wonderful article. But perhaps at least a start, better than nothing: a stub with categories etc, some useful sources, a link to Polish wikipedia for those who can read it, etc. PamD 14:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Ipigott That was an unsourced statement of mine, just what I think is the case! But I'm also confused about our attitude to whether or not we trust machine translation - the tip to photo and use Google translate gets us the gist of the article, or the broad subject topic, but I wouldn't want to use it for anything more except the odd short phrase here and there (eg I used Google translate for her date of birth as I don't know the months in Polish). PamD 14:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think you've made a good start. Unfortunately there are many poorly sourced articles in other language versions but that doesn't mean the people covered are not notable. Many, like this one, obviously are.--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I started doing translations in the early days (2015? 2016?) of Preferences→Beta features→Content Translation (which doesn't work for me anymore). Since then, I've complied with the instructions set forth in WP:TRANSLATION/Help:Translation. Generally, I stick with translating from languages I've studied in school or spoken at home, though there are a few other languages I'm comfortable translating from these days. As for sources in other languages, EN-WP allows the use of them, so I do include them. I always look for additional EN-langauge citations, which I prefer to include as "in addition to" rather than "instead of" (it's my way of being culturally respectful to the original editor). If the other-language Wikipedia article has an unsourced paragraph, and if I can't find a source for it myself, I don't include it in the EN-WP article. Unfortunately, many articles in other-language WPs don't include WP:IC so commonly, I avoid those altogether. If I'm skittish about the ELs in other-language articles, I don't include them. I like including ISBNs and ISSNs in "Selected works" sections, so if the other-language article doesn't include them, I search for them myself. Lastly (more like, firstly), I treat translations with the required respect for attribution, e.g., include
Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.
in the edit summary; include{{Translated page|fr|Exact name of the French article}}
on the EN-WP talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I started doing translations in the early days (2015? 2016?) of Preferences→Beta features→Content Translation (which doesn't work for me anymore). Since then, I've complied with the instructions set forth in WP:TRANSLATION/Help:Translation. Generally, I stick with translating from languages I've studied in school or spoken at home, though there are a few other languages I'm comfortable translating from these days. As for sources in other languages, EN-WP allows the use of them, so I do include them. I always look for additional EN-langauge citations, which I prefer to include as "in addition to" rather than "instead of" (it's my way of being culturally respectful to the original editor). If the other-language Wikipedia article has an unsourced paragraph, and if I can't find a source for it myself, I don't include it in the EN-WP article. Unfortunately, many articles in other-language WPs don't include WP:IC so commonly, I avoid those altogether. If I'm skittish about the ELs in other-language articles, I don't include them. I like including ISBNs and ISSNs in "Selected works" sections, so if the other-language article doesn't include them, I search for them myself. Lastly (more like, firstly), I treat translations with the required respect for attribution, e.g., include
- Thanks. I think you've made a good start. Unfortunately there are many poorly sourced articles in other language versions but that doesn't mean the people covered are not notable. Many, like this one, obviously are.--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi all, when using machine translation of texts from Slavic languages for the Geofocus event, please remember to double check if the names you get out of the translation are in nominative case (= the same form as in the names of the articles). If needed, I can assist with Polish, Czech and Slovak names. GiantBroccoli (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- PS. What is U,V,W ? :) W=Women? U=university...? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus It's the Alphabet Run: U-W. Thanks for all your work on the little stub I started. Looks good. PamD 06:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @PamD I think we should be able to DYK it if not GA it :) Thanks for starting it! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Looks fine as a candidate for DYK but will need significant further development for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @PamD @SusunW @Ipigott I've done expanding it for now, it should be DYK ready at this point (who'll nominate it?). I concur for GA we would need more expansion, the good news is that the sources we have now are sufficient even without the PSB bio (they are just in Polish...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus Thanks again. I've added mention of one of her published books, as it illustrates her involvement with blindness which I think I found in several google-translated sources I looked at - and the Worldcat record is another which shows her surname as "Szumanówna", too. She seems to have written several books, though the Polish wikipedia article doesn't include a "Publications" section. PamD 07:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- @PamD @SusunW @Ipigott I've done expanding it for now, it should be DYK ready at this point (who'll nominate it?). I concur for GA we would need more expansion, the good news is that the sources we have now are sufficient even without the PSB bio (they are just in Polish...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been in and out all week because Monday was my birthday and I'm lucky to have a lot of friends who want to celebrate. Thanks Piotrus, I knew you would help. PamD, I always have trouble with the "conjugation" of nouns - a friend explained some (like "ówna" for an unmarried woman, versus "owa" for a married one) designate gender or status, whereas others denote whether it is a subject or object. (The only place in the world I've been where could not read a map was Croatia, because of that. Street names on the map did not match the street signs.) I have a slew of polyglots I ask about these things because it's confusing to me. Pleased to see that the article has expanded so well. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- @PamD Now DYK-nominated: Template:Did you know nominations/Wanda Szuman Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Looks fine as a candidate for DYK but will need significant further development for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @PamD I think we should be able to DYK it if not GA it :) Thanks for starting it! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus It's the Alphabet Run: U-W. Thanks for all your work on the little stub I started. Looks good. PamD 06:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion about illustrating women articles with drawn portraits
Hello ! I'm the new president to les sans pagEs, and we created a project aiming at illustrating women articles with drawn portraits of artists contributing on a voluntary basis. There is an ongoing discussion here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Les_sans_images for which your help would be greatly appreciated. Warm regards Sinkra (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Nattes à chat writing here (changed my pseudo last september). There are so many articles without illustrations that I don't understand why one would want to delete these drawings that were generously given by artists and published under free license. I find the ongoing criticism about les sans image's initiative tiresome and cumbersome and so typically unproductive in generating long mountains of discussions. Hyruspex (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Because it's easier to destroy than to create. In the time that it takes an artist to create a drawing, someone can delete a hundred, and feel that they have been productive and contributed to the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Because it's easier to destroy than to create. In the time that it takes an artist to create a drawing, someone can delete a hundred, and feel that they have been productive and contributed to the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- An example, I think, is the image I was surprised to see added to Eileen Kramer recently. I'm not sure it is useful. Best to keep discussion in one place, just thought I'd offer an example of a WiR article to which an image has been added. PamD 23:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Voting in the 17th annual Picture of the Year contest
An announcement received via Wikimedia-l informs us that the final round of voting to determine the 17th annual Wikimedia Commons "Picture of the Year" is now open. Cast your vote here. This round of voting will be open for 2 weeks. Any user with more than 75 edits before Jan. 1, 2023 is eligible to vote; if you're not sure, the voting tool will automatically check for you. If you have any questions, there's also a help page. Rosiestep (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cool thanks for the heads up @Rosiestep! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Review of draft with COI
Hi all, I have done some work on a draft article on the bilingual Irish poet Deirdre Brennan. The draft was started by her daughter who attended a workshop I ran a few years ago. Given the COI, I'd appreciate if anyone else could take a look at it. She should have a Vicipéid (GA) article soon regardless, but she is an award winning poet so I feel she passes notability. All help much appreciated! Smirkybec (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like an unimpeachable article, presuming the refs check out - I make that assumption. There are just two sentences which are unreferenced, in first two in P4 ("Her two collections...") and the claims made in those sentences are not so sensational as to demand referencing. Article seems distinctly neutral and informative, no trace of a COI agenda in it. I'd be happy to see it promoted as is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for taking a look! That sentence you mention could probably be removed given the information is in the list of works? I have followed up on all the citations and expanded them as much as possible. Given her period, I'd imagine more is available pre-digital in Irish newspapers so I might do a bit of work on that first. Thank you very much for the initial review! Smirkybec (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have been bold and published the article Deirdre Brennan - she is also on Vicipéid as well! Smirkybec (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good; well done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have been bold and published the article Deirdre Brennan - she is also on Vicipéid as well! Smirkybec (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for taking a look! That sentence you mention could probably be removed given the information is in the list of works? I have followed up on all the citations and expanded them as much as possible. Given her period, I'd imagine more is available pre-digital in Irish newspapers so I might do a bit of work on that first. Thank you very much for the initial review! Smirkybec (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, this took long enough, eh? Article created in a 2018 editathon. I do think I deal with some of the stuff that was wrong with this image a lot faster nowadays, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 14:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Help identifying a person (or two) in a set of photos
Heya! Found these images on the BBC 100 Women article's talk page with the uploader asking help identifying the women in these photos already back in 2021. They are still unidentified 2+ years later. Is the woman on the righthand side Miky Lee (wikidata:Q12611423) perchance?
The woman on the left I do not recognize at all. Thanks for all the help on this! - Yupik (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, let's see. Miky Lee only got the award in 2022, not in 2019. We have https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49856545 which gives a speakers list for the 2019 event. We know that https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img07_Lisa_Campo-Engelstein_PhD.jpg is Lisa Campo-Engelstein, who is second on the "Afternoon session", and was taken (EXIF) at 17 October 2019, 14:57:02. These pictures were taken at 17 October 2019, 14:24:55 through 14:31:34, so half an hour earlier. The speaker immediately preceding Lisa Campo-Engelstein in that list is Jung Chang, of whom we have a picture of in our article which seems pretty close to the woman on the right side, and in the BBC photos of her https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0009bmk and https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140620-jung-chang-after-wild-swans, with her hair swept to one side, she seems even closer. The ones before her in that speakers list are Nanjira Sambuli and Erika Lust, who are clearly not the woman in that photograph. I'm going to say that is Jung Chang, 90% sure. The woman on the left is presumably a BBC interviewer, since there is another in the Lisa Campo-Engelstein photos. --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Great work, GRuban. I'd say it is 99.8% chance it is Jung Chang, as the photo at [20] has the same brooch and scarf, and the date is exactly the same, being 17 October 2017. On March 19, 2020, she appears in this video with the exact same brooch. [21]. I would say it is safe to say it is her, given all this corroborating evidence. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Immigrate vs emigrate - Antonija Höffern
Hi. I'm not sure whether the word immigrate or emigrate is the applicable one for the article Antonija Höffern. Can someone help me out? Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- They're equally correct in this context. The difference would matter if you were only talking about the origin country or the destination country, but since both are mentioned, either immigrate or emigrate works. pburka (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Don't know how notable they are...
But File:Bodenwieser Ballet performance of Blue Danube Waltz, with Moira Claux, Elaine Vallance, Nina Bascolo and Biruta Apens, 1953 (17617112191).jpg has four Australian ballet dancers in a rather pleasing image. Moira Claux, Elaine Vallance, Nina Bascolo and Biruta Apens. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 16:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
FAR for Mary Wollstonecraft novel Mary: A Fiction
User:Z1720 has 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. pburka (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)