Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 136: Line 136:

=Feminism barnstar==

=Feminism barnstar==

[[File:Feminism Barnstar.jpg|thumb|right|The Feminism Barnstar can be awarded to editors who have made significant contributions to articles related to feminism.]]

[[File:Feminism Barnstar.jpg|thumb|right|The Feminism Barnstar can be awarded to editors who have made significant contributions to articles related to feminism.]]

As the year comes to a close, I just wanted to park a discussion here to get the planning started for 2026. Spookyaki has noted that we’ve met every goal but one this year (woo-hoo!). Lots of excellent nominations and reviews completed, and two more GA editathon events hosted. What would you like to see for Women in Green in 2026? Anything you would like to change or do differently? Reflections on the past year? Any and all comments welcome over the next couple of weeks. For myself, I would like to simplify the format of our FAC/Peer Review goal, which always seems to lag behind our other goals (maybe folks are feeling put off by the complicated-looking two/three reviewer option for FAC/PR articles?). Best wishes for the holiday season, Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have any ideas at the moment, but if we could find a way to get articles reviewed at GAN (and to a lesser extent FAC and PR), that would be incredibly useful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: You mean increasing the number of GA nominations reviewed (clearing more backlog)? I suppose one idea might be a GA editathon focused exclusively on reviews — we could aim to completely clear all women-related GANs. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One limitation of this is that, because the idea is generally that we want people to have at least one GA before they start doing reviews, we’d essentially be limited to people already within the GA ecosystem.
I also don’t know if I would want to replace either of the regular events with an event purely for reviews. Spookyaki (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spookyaki: Good points. If we have enough general interest from WiG members, something like this could become a third annual event — but I also wouldn’t be adverse to *trying* it as a replacement for one of our current events (at least once?). Perhaps one way around the “must have at least one GA” experience requirement could be a buddy/second opinion system, similar to the 20-minute-assessments we already do for less experienced editors’ GA nominations — if a less experienced editor wants to participate and do a GA review, a more experienced editor should check their review for any major errors/issues before the final call of pass or fail. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the new year coming up, do we want to update our goals from last year? We met our nomination goal by +12, our Hot 100 goal exactly, our review goal by +6, our FA/FL goals by +6, and did not reach out PR/FA review goals.
Personally, I am comfortable increasing out nomination goal to 80 while keeping the others the same. Spookyaki (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spookyaki: Sounds fair! I’m good with that goals plan. I’ll pull together a new 2026 goals page later today. Can you do me a favour and go through the 2025 goals page to (a) check that all listed articles have some kind of WiG talk page tag and (b) update the status of any nominations that may have passed or failed recently? Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Mostly done, do you want me to add templates to the reviews and peer reviews as well? Spookyaki (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Spookyaki: Definitely yes for the GA reviews. Peer reviews/FAC reviews seem a little different to me… but for consistency I’m thinking we should probably tag all those with WiG tag templates too (it’s all related to our article improvement work, after all). Thanks!! Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, those should all be tagged now I think. Spookyaki (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Goals page is now live! If you spot any errors or issues, feel free to flag them or jump in and fix yourself. Our new GA nominations goal for 2026 is 80 noms, and I’ve adjusted the wording and format of the PR/FAC Review goal to try to make it easier for folks to contribute to that. (I ended up tweaking the FA nomination goal slightly too, from 5 to 7, as we’ve actually passed our FA goal several years in a row.) Happy new year everyone, Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! If anyone is interested, I’ve had an FAC open for Puerto Rican anarchist Luisa Capetillo for a little while now, but so far only have two reviews. If anyone would be able to give it a look (and leave some comments), that would be awesome. Thanks! Spookyaki (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! Lately a little project of mine has been adding refideas to articles based on books I’m reading and new articles published in academic journals. I figure these references might make the articles ideal candidates for GAN, so I’ll list the ones about women in case anyone is interested. You can find the list here.
Spookyaki (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently brought her article from a C to GA, and nominated her for DYK as suggested by the bot. I’m not really sure if I’ve selected the most interesting fact about her and not really sure how to go about reviewing another one to encourage the review. Any eyes would be great! Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I invite members of this Wikiproject to a peer review of the article Amanda Asay. This is the first sports biography I have written, so any feedback would be appreciated. The PR can be found here. Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Women in Green team, I hope this finds you well. It’s Lucy H here from Wikimedia UK.

I’m running an upcoming Public Edit-a-Thon in February based on the topic Women in Green: in this case, the Green highlights the focus this event has on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and women who’ve worked in these areas. I am so sorry for the duplication in naming – I hadn’t appreciated this would overlap with your work! I hope we can co-exist for this event and I’ll rename in future.

It’ll be online on Thursday 5th February 6pm – 8.30pm (GMT), and the event will focus on enhancing the coverage on Wikipedia of Women involved in the SDGs of Climate Action, Life Under Water and Life on Land. Tickets available here.

I’ll be leading this one with my Topics for Impact Coordinator hat on, with a view to getting some articles improved and created so that come International Women’s Day we can run some kind of publication event for those who have been involved along the way.

The dream scenario (and to be clear, I realise it is very much a dream!) is to have articles assessed that can make it to GA status, with the potential for DYKs. The maximum number of articles we’d be looking at would be 4-5, and we’d be keen to get enthusiastic reviewers on board and ready to go through the process with us. It would be nice to tie it into International Women’s Day and to have reviews completed before then but I do realise this is very much wishful thinking.

If you’re interested in participating or supporting, please do let me know and if there are any reviewers out there who could commit to reviewing even one article towards the end of February/beginning of March, that would be amazing. EriedgenArc (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be a wonderful event, I hope it all goes well! Getting articles assessed as GA is what this project is all about, so I’m sure some of our members would be happy to review some as they pop up. Is there any way we can keep an eye on what articles will be coming out of the event? —Grnrchst (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds great! I’d be willing to review articles. Are these nomination expected to be from new editors? If so, I wonder if it might make sense to temporarily open the 20-minute assessments? @Alanna the Brave and @Grnrchst, what do you think? Spookyaki (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EriedgenArc: Sounds like a great event. Do you know which articles you may be working on (i.e., do you have a list)? During our own GA editathon events, we also offer 20-minute assessments or “mini reviews” for less experienced editors’ projects, giving their chosen article a quick 20-minute scan to flag any major remaining issues before they nominate it for a full GA review. I don’t know if that would be useful to you too (perhaps you already have enough editors experienced with GA nominations, and you wouldn’t need this?), but we could potentially offer this support as well in the lead-up to your group’s final nomination of their articles. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Alanna the Brave @Grnrchst @Spookyaki,
Thank you so much for your kind and generous responses! I’m sorry it has taken me a couple of days to reply.

  • In terms of keeping an eye on what pops up, is it best if I post here with any updates?
  • The 20-minute assessments look brilliant: our idea had been to have a publication event nearer to International Women’s Day so I’m not sure if this activity would be better for that, once articles have had more attention (I’m conscious that our event on Thursday is only 2.5h) or if you’d like to support in the event itself?
We will have some GA knowledge, but nowhere near the capacity of this group of amazing people so any help would be appreciated, please do just let me know how to make it as accessible and easy as possible for you all, as I realise you have a lot on. EriedgenArc (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! This February, the good article nominations project is holding another GA review backlog drive, which is aiming to cut down the number of unreviewed nominations as much as possible. Helping to review some of these nominations can earn you a barnstar and will contribute to everyone waiting less time for their own nominations to get a review. To direct our efforts as Women in Green, here’s the backlog of nominations on women and women’s works that still need reviewing:

History
Literature
Media, film and television
Music
Politics
Sport

The nominations which were done in past Women in Green events are tagged as “WiG”, so please do give these your attention if it interests you! This backlog covers everything up to the end of October 2025; when we’ve cleared some of it, I’ll add some more recent nominations. Remember also that this backlog drive is incentivising reviews in as many categories as possible, so consider diversifying your review focus a bit. Hope everyone’s having a good start to their year, and happy editing in the month ahead! —Grnrchst (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave and Spookyaki: Would it be worth putting out a wee message to the mailing list about this backlog drive? I know we usually only send mailing list messages for own our big events, but I was hoping we could get more reviewing done this year and figured attracting more of our colleagues’ attentions to it could help with that. —Grnrchst (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Feminism Barnstar can be awarded to editors who have made significant contributions to articles related to feminism.

What does everyone think of this barnstar? Would it be all right with you if I added this barnstar to the list of topical barnstars here? – Wikipedia:Barnstars/Topical

Please let me know. Thank you.
ImTheQueenOfSheba (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top