Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Meetup/3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome, and good luck with your projects

[edit]

And we're off to a running start! Good luck with your GA projects, everyone. New participants are welcome to continue signing up over coming days. If you have any questions or concerns over the course of October, don't hesitate to reach out. I'll do a group check-in later in the month, just to see where we're at. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Available reviews

[edit]

In addition to the nominations that we'll be creating as part of the editathon, I've put together a list of pre-existing GANs that reviewers can take on:

These GANs also exist, but it's unclear whether they meet the criteria. Of course, all reviews are helpful:

Hopefully this list makes it easier to complete more reviews this month. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for collating these! I've just taken up the review for Nellie McClung and am now looking for others to review. Given there's a lot of songs and tv episodes on this list, does anyone have advice for reviewing articles about media? Most of my editing experience is with history, so I hesitate to venture into reviewing some of these without knowing best practice. Grnrchst (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great list! Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grnrchst what I've done before when reviewing things like films is simply to check out other comparable GAs to get an idea of standards and then look at the relevant wikprojects to see if there's any relevant guidelines (eg Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film). Also Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations tends to be helpful, cheers! Mujinga (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Available reviews, October

[edit]

Additional list of relevant GANs October 1–10:

Additional list of relevant GANs October 11–20:

Additional list of relevant GANS October 21–30:

Midpoint check-in

[edit]

Hey everyone -- we're halfway through the month, so I'm doing a quick check-in. How are things going? What are you working on right now? I'm impressed by all the great efforts on nominations and reviews so far (very solid work!). This past week I've been distracted by off-Wiki work and other obligations, but I've got it on my to-do list to respond to the in-progress review for Rajani Pandit, and I'm hoping to contribute another nomination or review by the end of October. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this moment to express my appreciation for the editathon, because it's led to several developments in my editing. I had never reviewed a GAN before, but it had been something I wanted to do. This event gave me the push I needed, and now I've got several reviews under my belt. As far as nominating, I didn't have much experience with biographies either, but that's what I've been working on here. Specifically, I've identified the first ladies of the US articles as needing improvement, so I'm using this as a jumping off point to (hopefully) bring the whole subject up to a Good Topic. TL;DR, the editathon has been very good for me. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: That's great! I'm so glad you've found the event helpful for developing these skills -- sometimes all you need is that push to make your first attempt. US First Ladies sounds like a good long term project. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated one, sorry all sources are in Spanish; am just waiting on photos to be finished on another; and am working on the mother of the Mexican environmental activist. During the writing of those, I got a bit sidetracked answering review queries for Eunice Newton Foote, which I wrote during the July editathon. Still need reviewers if anyone is up for FA review. SusunW (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: Medellín sounds really interesting (I had never heard of her before now). FA reviews still seem a little daunting to me, but I'll give it a shot later this week for Newton Foote if I can find time. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alanna the Brave That'd be cool, but I totally get real world obligations. I kinda focused on environmentalists/preservationists to help us get closer to our annual goal. SusunW (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, things are going well on my end. I got one of my articles passed as GA and have just submitted another. I have also been working here and there on improving many other women's articles, even those I don't think I'll be getting close to GA any time soon. Unfortunately I ran into a problem when I found out that one of the articles I'd translated from another language Wiki had been very closely paraphrased from its sources, so that review was failed. Hopefully I'll get that issue resolved soon.
All in all, I'm very happy this editathon is happening. I'm enjoying it and learning a lot from the process. Once this is all through, I very much look forward to the next one! -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add a word of thanks here. I appreciate the editahons too and the work you go through to organize them Alanna the Brave. They give us all a chance to learn, improve articles and an opportunity to meet editors we may not have met before. I am always happy to discover people whose focus is truly on article quality. I was very impressed with the thoroughness of the review I worked on with Grnrchst and always appreciate the collaborations that emerge through WIG. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to hear all the positive feedback. :-) Shoutout to WomenArtistUpdates and Goldsztajn for their help with setup/promotion, and to our excellent 20-minute assessment team! I'll definitely have it on my list to keep these editathons going next year. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed

[edit]

I'm a neewbie, would love it if I could get some advice. I've reviewed all the references in my chosen GA to-be, and I have some issues, I was hoping someone moe experienced could tell me what to do in some of these situations. The article is Bikini Kill. REFERENCE 1) The reference supports the information, but there are two links in the reference. The first one is fine, but the second one, "Archived from the original" gives a 404 error.

2)I don't know how close the article text has to be to the sourse. The text says "Hanna also published a fanzine called Bikini kill for their first tour in 1999", while the source says "In their feminist fanzine Bikini Kill they articulated an agenda...". One publisher vs a collective. This is the same reference as #1, so it has the same 404 error.

3) This reference is used three times, supers A, B, and C. The first two are fine, while the third is problematic. The article uses "large male audiences", while the source says "more male fans than they realized". (It goes on to say "A lot of men and boys were influenced...".)

4) OK

5)The article says Ian McKay produced their first EP, but he actually produced 4 out of 6 tracks. (I don't where to find it, but sources say he recorded the band, not produced them. (This is an important distinction in indie music.)

6, 7, and 8) OK

9) 404 error (page not found) (10) In Italian (These references are doubled up)

11) The reference to Wilcox is fine, but the source doesn't mention Vail, Spider and the Webs, or Old Haunts. Maybe the reference isn't supposed to be for that part of the sentence?

12) It's OK referencing Julie Ruin and Le Tigre, but there's no mention of Bill Karren in Ghost Mom or Kathleen Hanna in the Fakes.

13) The link takes you to a page full of SPIN articles, but I don't see the article being used as a reference.

14) OK

15) Ok, but this looks like reference padding - referencee # 14 seems to cover this information also.

16) OK

17) Can't tell - there's a pay wall (but I saw it briefly before being blocked, and I think the information is contained in ref. 16 also.)

18) OK

19) OK (although they call the band's two dated in London "European".)

20) The source doesn't actually say "third night" like the text, it says "Sunday performances" and "closing out the weekend".

21) pay wall

22) The information is correct, but I tend to doubt Stereogum is a RS. It's a blog. A very big blog that once got bought out by a big corporation (it's back in the founder's hand now). I was called "a major publication". It's not listed on the RS bulletin board at all.

23) OK

-- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Archived from the original" links giving 404 errors is normal. That's the point of having an archive link; it means you can still access the information even though the original page is gone. We keep the original link so we know where it came from, even though it doesn't work anymore.
  • Paraphrasing a source in different wording is fine (and even recommended) as long as it doesn't subvert the original meaning. The key thing to watch is to make sure the article doesn't imply that a source is saying something that it isn't.
  • Having foreign language sources is fine. English is preferred, but there's nothing wrong with keeping a foreign language source if there's no English alternative.
  • A little bit of reference padding is fine, especially if it's from two unrelated sources, as it further confirms the reliability of the statement. If it gets excessive, then it should be trimmed.
  • Paywall sources are fine. Obviously easy to access sources are great, but a source is a source.
  • Stereogum calls itself a "blog", but functionally it doesn't appear to be that different from any other web magazine. As long as they don't let any random person publish whatever they want, it should be fine.
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Thebiguglyalien said. Pete Best Beatles, on Stereogum, it doesn't matter so much that it is a blog, but rather is it independent, curated, and who wrote it. For the first point, the blog doesn't appear to have any tie to the subject, so independent. It lists and editorial board[1] and while that is self-reported, there is not reason for them to lie about that as it is easily verifiable. The author of the piece is Chris DeVille. Our guidelines say "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". This says he previously published with Billboard, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone], and the Washington Post, all of which can be verified with the links above, so I think you are okay to use it. SusunW (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. A couple of follow-up questions: should I just assume the information behind the pay wall is correct? You don't comment on the instances where I don't think the reference does support the article. Assuming I'm correct, my job is to either find a legitimate source for the info, or delete content, right? I'm still not sure about those instances of slight discrepancies: produced album vs 4 of 6 tracks, European dates vs London dates. Should I tweak these or let them be? Thanks again. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Best Beatles Try the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to get paywalled articles. If you are submitting it, it is your responsibility to make sure all of the info in the article you submit for review is supported by the sources, so edit accordingly. SusunW (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Request has suggested a workaround for paywalls, I've found a replacement for unusable reference #13, no recommendations for other reference questions; I've reread my chosen article several times, reread all the references cited (at least the relevant parts), and reread the article about GA standards, but I have no idea of what is required for GA regarding quality of info, quality of prose, etc. To find out where the bar is set, can someone look over the article as it stands now (Bikini Kill), or should I submit in order to get an initial evaluation? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles: Just as a note, I see there's currently a maintenance tag under the article's "Timeline" section ("this section's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information"). You should check that, address any lingering issues, and afterwards remove the tag (with reasons for removal in your edit summary). For quality of prose and info, I'd definitely recommend requesting a 20-minute article assessment for more feedback. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AND... that's a wrap!

[edit]

Fantastic work everyone! We've hit a new record for articles improved during a single WiG editathon, and I was glad to see so many newcomers and regulars participating. I'll be going through the list of articles and handing out event barnstars later this month -- any GA reviews that were started by or before October 31 (as per UTC timestamp) can still be added to the list of articles reviewed as long as they're completed by November 30. If you have any feedback or ideas for changes/improvements to future Women in Green editathons, please feel free to comment on that here. I hope to see you back again at future events. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hosting this Alanna! I look forward to any future events WIG has coming up! :D - Grnrchst (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green/Meetup/3&oldid=1119432694"