This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Articles of women from earlier days generally seem to get assessed as being of lower importance than those of women who lived in the twentieth century. That not as much is known about these women as of those who lived in the age of photography and the start of mass media, does not mean that their actions did not have great effect on the times in which they lived. Especially women who ruled in their own right or actively acted as regents of significant territories should, in my opinion, not be assessed as being of low importance.
Thank you for reading my appeal on behalf of our not quite so unimportant foremothers. Peaceingalaxy (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Peaceingalaxy, you make a good point. There can be a tendency toward putting more importance on topics that we know better because they seem more important to us. I agree that we need to look at the people who were rulers as people of high importance if they controlled large territories. Thank you bringing it to our attention. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The later people are indeed important in our world, but so were the earlier ones in their time and world. You are welcome and thank you for your nice words. Peaceingalaxy (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are there no redirects in the article assessment table?