Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Woman of the day: a new one each day from our women's biographies

Women in Red named in Science article, "Wikipedia’s gender gap has flipped for one group of scientists"

What a wonderful surprise to learn about this article published yesterday by Science, the peer-reviewed academic journal of the AAAS. In part, the article states, "Nearly half of the women’s biographies created since 2015 were written by editors affiliated with Women in Red, a volunteer effort aimed at addressing Wikipedia’s gender imbalance." Congratulations to everyone who has been part of this journey since July 18, 2015! -- Rosiestep (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Unlike the researchers, or Rosiestep, I am not in the least surprised by these findings, which I'm sure could be replicated for BLPs in many other areas. So now we have, at least in places, a reverse gender gap. Will members of the project now feel the need to tone down some of their rhetoric? I very much doubt it. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Obviously not everyone has the same passion for the Wikiproject. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The overall result is still barely over 2/10 BLPs being women and gender minorities. Nearly 8/10 articles are still men. One subsegment is great to have, but the project has a long way to go to accomplish its goals. Canadianerk (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_152#Bar_chart and earlier discussions on "our goals". Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Logically, if the contribution that women have made to a given field ("women biology faculty" in this example) is equal to that of men, then the goal would be something along the lines of 50/50. If it is greater, then that should be reflected. Am I'm missing something? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Several things I think - for starters the implications of history, and also the impact of team ball sports. For living and not too old academic biologists 50/50 might be a reasonable goal, but only a fairly small proportion of our bios are in such categories. Is " barely over 2/10 BLPs being women and gender minorities" even true? That's the overall living and dead figure. As the graph at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_152#Statistics_by_age_and_sports/non-sports_-_2026_update shows, for people born since the early 1970s, the figures are all over 25%. And as User:Andrew Gray says there : "Outwith sports, we have a healthier balance, and among non-athletes of "working age", say 20 to 65, the overall ratio is about 35% female; if we restrict it to those aged 20 to 45, the ratio is about 45%". Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the intent of the project is to represent the contribution that notable women have made (or are making, in the case of BLPs) to history fairly and accurately—not to put a thumb on the scale or mis-represent the facts. Correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0:, you can read the second paragraph of the project page to see a description of the intent of the project. Members of the project have to follow Wikipedia policies such as neutral point of view, but like other editors, will have their own opinions and biases. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with that myself, but statistic-chasers, often in a very crude fashion without considering the realities and possibilities of the numbers, have always been numerous here. See above. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Going back to the Royal Society paper, Out of the 2104 women, 197 (i.e. 9.36%) had a Wikipedia biography. Out of the 3721 men, 278 (i.e. 7.47%) had a Wikipedia biography So most of the academics in the sample were men, but the women in the sample were more likely to have Wikipedia articles. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, these stats are interesting to see, thank you. I have read the project pages (though perhaps not in as much detail as one ought to) and have also tried to contribute where I am able. WIRED is undoubtedly one of the more impactful and well-run Wikiprojects of the lot. It deserves all of the recognition, accolades, and sundry kudos it gets—and then some. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: This is a fabulous find, thank you for sharing. Great that WIR is having such a real world impact. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, really interesting results. It would be useful to have similar investigations for women in other branches of science, although I have a feeling that with our special interest in the environment and similar disciplines, biologists may have attracted significant coverage. Just as well "Science" picked out the key findings of the article.as it does not appear to be generally accessible, not even through the Wikipedia Library. I was interested to see that David Alvarez-Ponce is from Barcelona. There has been considerable interest in progress on Wikipedia's coverage of women by other researchers in Barcelona such as Núria Ferran-Ferrer.--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Ipigott it appears that the article is in Poceedings B, which is available on request (available collections) through the Wikipedia Library, see Wikipedia:Royal Society journals. I haven't tried it myself. TSventon (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, TSventon, but the Royal Society application process is unfortunately not easy to manage and the key details appear to have been reported in Science.--Ipigott (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

When I clicked the doi link (https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.2566) from the Science report it took me to the original paper in a Royal Society Journal, and there didn't seem to be a paywall. pburka (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Good to see the status has changed. When I added the same url to our Research page, I could only see the abstract and three tables. Maybe these posts have encouraged general accessibility. The full articles makes interesting reading.--Ipigott (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 WIR events

Hi folks, I've realised that we haven't got any volunteers for leading August and September on the events rota.I think we introduced this to spread the load and I think seems to mostly be working well. However, we need a drive to increase the number of folks volunteering to do this. Any ideas? One thing I will say is that you get to lead on something you're interested in and it's great to see all the contributions around that. Open to thoughts/suggestions and especially volunteers!!!! TheResilientEngineer (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, TheResilientEngineer. I think many more contributors would volunteer to handle coming months if they could rely on preparation of the basic formatting by editors such as WomenArtistUpdates and MSGJ. In addition, we are constantly looking for interesting new items for our future events as well as suggestions for the tip of the month.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the initial admin of setting up the pages (opposed to editing them) is a barrier. I don't know if there is a solution to this without having the page names and whilst also maintaining the number ordering.

You are right that we could also do with building up a "back catalogue" of tips and topics too. I've already asked someone to provide one for July however, I think the next months tip should be about writing tips. Potentially it's worth someone having a trawl of this talk page to see what good guidance folks have shared with each other and translating them to be tips to add to the tip list.

I'm currently supporting Alsor to build their confidence to lead in the future, perhaps we could put out a call for folks that want to lead but need a "buddy" to get them through their first attempt? Perhaps we could add a call to this page to see if anyone is interested in leading with support? TheResilientEngineer (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've just done the trawl. I've added three new ones which is better than none.TheResilientEngineer (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheResilientEngineer: I'm happy to put my hand up to be a buddy and mentor someone through the process, too (and love that you're doing that this month!).

If anyone wants to join me in preparing events for August (or a future month), just let me know! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Chocmilk03 thanks so much for volunteering to do august, I know you've already coordinated a few events this year so far. I've just pinged you in some messages with another user who might be interested in being coached on how to lead a month. Hopefully I can leave this with you? And hopefully we will now have two more folks that help with the coordination! Hurrah!TheResilientEngineer (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I can lead on August! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Lajmmoore, @Chocmilk03 has already volunteered, and will be mentoring @Valereee through the process for the first time, you can either join them as a delivery team, or take September? I believe September is still without a volunteer if you would like to take that? TheResilientEngineer (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Review Request

• Link: User:BntLee13/sandbox

Hello all,

I am an art historian, and I have never partook in writing an article for Wikipedia before, so I am a little confused on next steps. I have drafted and sourced the biographic article for Traute Steinthal, as my master's thesis research was undertaken on her. I currently have my draft in my sandbox.

How do I go about having the article reviewed for edits so it can be published on wiki?

Thanks! BntLee13 (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully coming here is a good start.

• Secondly, you should summarise what the sources say and add inline citations. I suggest that you review Wikipedia's policy of WP:No original research, which means that Wikipedia articles are different from academic dissertations.
• Thirdly, the article will need some work on its formatting. I have made a start on that. TSventon (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey @BntLee13, this is a great start. From having a quick look you also need to take a look at the way to do referencing so that they appear correctly (I'm not critiquing the sources or their reliability). There is a guide for this that might be useful Help:Referencing_for_beginners. Good luck! TheResilientEngineer (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The article seems to be coming along very well, BntLee13, but it would be useful to address recognition of her art more specifically. Possibly as a result of your own research, I see from this and similar posts that there has been recent interest in some of her works which were considered degenerative art. I see, by the way, that in addition to the various Berliner Börsen-Courier sources you cite, she is also mentioned is various Bertiner Tegeblatt articles. I don't want to be too demanding at this stage but I really think it would be useful to include a separate section on "Recognition"´, drawing on the two sources from the French press you have included. You might also make a short mention of recognition in the lead as otherwise there is a risk she may not be considered notable enough as an artist. Hope this helps. Please let us know when you have followed up on some of these recommendations and we can take a new look. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Sound article. Do ask here IMO and dont submit it for a review elsewhere - some reviewers (elsewhere) take months to then object over some triviality. You can publish it yourself! (Be Bold!) or an editor here can do it. (See the Move button when YOU are ready). I think that the list of works (tldr) could be moved to the talk page or summarised under "Selected works" - maybe where you have a reference for the works existence. Well done for helping. Victuallers (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! I very much appreciate your contributions. One suggestion from my end: please update the information for the (great!) photo you’ve used in this entry. Since the subject died in 1906, I assume you did not take the photo, therefore it cannot be licensed as your “own work” (as you’re currently listed it), and may be deleted if you don’t correct that. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Redlist help please?

So @Rosiestep had the great idea to have an event on long dead women. There are already some redlists based on birth year. However, I wanted to be more accurate with the Long Dead theme and do some red lists with a bit better break down based on the year of death for women on WD. I've had a go.....it did not work. Can someone take a look and tell me where I'm going wrong please?

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by time period/Deaths 1800-1850

TheResilientEngineer (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheResilientEngineer - sorry I've come late to this. I've amended the first item in the SPARQL query to:

?item wdt:P570 ?dod .

but the query times out. I then amended the timespan to 1800 to 1825 and it still timed out with the 2000 limit. Changing that to 1000 did return a result.

That said, when Wikidata moves from the current query service, all queries will need to be updated and may well have different restraints. I've been using QLever to update the WIR statistics and it's very powerful. Oronsay (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Cate Giordano

• Cate Giordano

Need some quick help since it's a BLP in the purview of WIR-373. Giordano exclusively uses singular they pronouns, but otherwise doesn't explicitly identify as LGBTQ+ or similar in any reliable sources. Should they be assumed to be non-binary based on the pronouns? If not, how do we handle this? Historically, we've used he/she pronouns as a heuristic for gender, but this is a gender-neutral pronoun and a BLP we're talking, so needed to ask to be safe. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

What are you specifically looking to change? Do you wish to describe their gender in the prose? Add categories? Something else? pburka (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW their pronouns are sourced, and so is their drag performer career (hence a few LGBTQ categories were added), so they're at the least part of WIR-373. I'm only making sure if the non-binary categories can be added. The issue is that they don't appear to be in any databases that list sex/gender (identity) or the like. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's probably ok (but I'm also not the best judge). They're certainly gender non-conforming, based on their pronouns, and non-binary is a parent category for more specific descriptions, such as agender or gender fluid. pburka (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken care of it. ミラP@Miraclepine 18:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

New article on Patricia Nyaundi

Hello everyone, this is my first Women in Red article! Patricia Nyaundi is the Kenyan high court judge who blocked the US Ebola quarantine facility in Kenya. It would be great if anyone could take a look at the article. I have 0 background in law and sadly Kenyan/African news sources are not too numerous. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 12:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 WikiWomenInRed in Edinburgh

This meeting notice caught my eye.

There have been over 100 editathons for Women in Red at Edinburgh over the last 10 years.

The editathons are (nearly) always on the last Friday of the month and are hosted by Ewan McAndrew and the assistant Wikipedia in Residence Anna. Catherine and I went along to see the editathon as we are planning to have a linked editathon in Malawi and Scotland for Motokazi. The project has created over 100 new articles for en:wiki and an extra 500 items for Wikidata (all about women associated with Malawi). Victuallers (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

New here

Hello everyone. i just translated a Good Article in frWP, on which i worked two years ago and added it to the project : Bella Bellow. Even though i'm familiar with wikicode, i would like a review of the article to see what i miss on the conventions here. I contribute to the equivalent project on frWP — L'embellie @ 05:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@L'embellie Bonjour et bienvenue. I've fixed a link which was pointing to a disambiguation page, and rearranged the end sections. "See also" is for links to other en.wiki articles; "Further reading" and "External links" are separate from your list of references and sources. We don't include a hatnote at the top unless the term "Bellow" would lead the reader to this page: the reasoning is that no-one wanting another use of "Bellow" would find themselves on this page by mistake, so we don't need onward navigation. I haven't looked in detail at the bulk of the article, just fixed these few little points I noticed. PamD 08:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ! — L'embellie @ 08:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Barbara Bullard

Dear folks, I am trying to rescue this stub, and I added a couple of citations to hold off for a few days. However, I need your help in adding more sources. Tagging the creator, Jaydensidell, and editor John B123, as a courtesy. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Barbara Bullard was not approached in the proper way to my mind and I can't work on it in this state because all of the text is uncited. Why it was filled in without attributing sources is a question. That aside, I'm not up to date on special notability provisions but I'm not sure this is going to meet WP:GNG. Is there someplace other than google and google news I can look for secondary coverage? There is a photo of her on Wikimedia commons at least.

What I would have to do is delete everything that isn't cited or is cited to primary/close sources, look at secondary sources, and rebuild the article from scratch. If you can help me find those secondary sources I'm willing to do the work. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned women's articles

Regarding our event #375 (orphaned women), I started working on the writers in this list. Found Aimee Louw but when I went to add her to Louw, I saw that she was already on that page and had been since 2022. So I'm wondering if the definition of "orphaned" is "a page that isn't a disambiguation page" or is the problem with the bambots.brucemyers list itself not updating? -- Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that those lists show every page with an {{orphan}} template. I was a bit surprised to learn that this template hides itself after some time (see Template:Orphan#Visibility), so it's likely that nobody noticed that the page was still flagged as an orphan. I don't think there's any automation to remove these templates, so there's a good chance many of the "orphaned" pages really aren't. pburka (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria explains the criteria for articles that should be tagged as orphans, while the bambots.brucemyers list lists articles that were, rightly or wrongly, tagged as orphans when it last updated. Part of the purpose of the list is to help editors remove incorrect orphan tags. Looking at the small print of the criteria, Louw is a surname page, so it doesn't count as a de-orphaning link. TSventon (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

When I learned about the criteria for "Orphan" status, I added a note to the page about our project pointing out that an article is not de-orphaned by:

• link from a dab page
• link from a surname page
• redirect (eg from one of her books)

even though all of these are important and the encyclopedia is improved by adding these. PamD 13:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

2026 World Cup

An upcoming main international event is the 2026 World Cup. While it is realy a "mem's event" there are notable female involved. So I few nice options to be highlighted, these female referees articles could be further improved:

• Katia Itzel García (currently Start class)
• Tori Penso (currently Start class)
• Tatiana Guzmán (currently a Stub)

Or these aricles could be created:

• Sandra Ramírez (Mexico) (many Spanish independent sources at Spanish wiki, English source, English source, English announcement)
• Kathryn Nesbitt (USA) (source, source, 2025 referee of the year, source, source, source)
• Brooke Mayo (USA) (source, US referee of the year, source, source, source)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:~2026-31390-18 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 June 2026

Women in clowning

A little different, and I'm not sure it's of much use, but I came across this in some of my ramblings today and decided to offer it in case someone might get something out of it. Someone has written a pair of blog posts about women in clowning:

• Part One
• Part Two

It's also a field in which I have limited experience. Still, I thought I'd bring it up in case it was of use to someone. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. This looks interesting and could possibly be linked to a future event on women entertainers. Up to now we have only 17 in Category:Female clowns. There must be many more who have made their mark.--Ipigott (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Missouri Remembers: Artists in Missouri through 1951

This, now, is more my speed: https://missouriartists.org/ It's a small database (357 names) of artists active in Missouri between the 1820s and 1951. 186 of them are women, and I know at least some do not have articles. Again...hopefully this is of use to someone. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Olivia Clare Friedman

Olivia Clare Friedman is a writer and former actress. She doesn't currently have an article though she is included on the Wikipedia page for Any Day Now here: Any Day Now (TV series). Olivia Clare Friedman (born 1982) - is a fiction writer and poet. She is the author of four books, including a novel, a short story collection, and two books of poetry. She was also an actress on the television series Any Day Now. ~2026-34397-96 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I encourage you to write a short draft for her and submit it for creation. This project's Ten Simple Rules essay has excellent tips for writing your first article. Editors here will be happy to review and provide feedback. pburka (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

A question for biologists

So I asked this over on the Biology and the Genetics Wikiprojects three days ago, but no responses so far. So I come to any of y'all biology-minded WiR editors on this.

A while back in 2024, I made a biography for Mary Clutter. Her research history involved her doing work in the 1960's that would later end up falling into the yet to be coined subject of Reprogramming. Now, the history section of the latter article claims that John Gurdon was the first person to showcase the subject in a 1962 publication on animal cells. Meanwhile, in 1961, Clutter published research showcasing the conversion of phloem cells in plants into xylem cells using hormonal applications.

Would this not count as a successful representation of reprogramming and prior to Gurdon's work? I was thinking I need to update that history section to add Clutter and reframe Gurdon's work as the first such application in animal cells. I notice our reprogramming article seems to largely discuss only mammals though (despite Gurdon's work even being on frogs), but that might just be our article not properly discussing the breadth of the subject in the first place. But what do y'all think? Silverseren^C 01:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there sources beyond her obituary that explicitly frame her 1961 work as "reprogramming"? If not, I would be hesitant to make that claim in the reprogramming article. Similarly, if there are sources describing it as reprogramming but which don't emphasize that she was the "first", I wouldn't assert any overall primacy for either her or Gurdon at the reprogramming page, and instead just summarize their respective work in chronological order (allowing claims of being the "first in mammals" for Gurdon if those exist). JoelleJay (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Google Books hallucinating book contents

For awareness, see: "Google Books hallucinating book contents" topic at Wikimedia-l. -- Rosiestep (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the editor thinks that Google Books is using AI to hallucinate incorrect content, and as proof they've presented a conversation with an AI chatbot. The only evidence (here) that Google Books is using AI at all is the say-so of another LLM. I'd call this circular reasoning, but it's a stretch to call anything involving LLMs "reasoning". pburka (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

They're comparing a 73 page, self published, ebook from 2025 with a 256 page, Penguin/Fern Press hardback published in 2026. Orange sticker (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Orange sticker:, there is now an answer on the original page suggesting that the self published ebook "is an AI-generated impostor (likely created to defraud those looking for the actual book)". TSventon (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Belle Rose (redirect to a town; needs actress)

Belle Rose

If anyone has an interest in writing on an obscure 19th century American actresses I just uploaded some pictures to commons of actress Belle Rose. She was sadly murdered by her actor husband in 1902. See:

https://www.nytimes.com/1902/09/28/archives/stage-manager-rose-shoots-his-wife-surrenders-himself-and-tells.html

https://www.newspapers.com/article/times-union-stage-manager-harry-rose-in/199728006/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/brooklyn-eagle-rose-gets-nineteen-years/199729093/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-evening-world-harry-rose-now-pleads/199728920/

Note that her husband Harry J. Rose should not be confused with the vaudevillians Harry Rose (began his career in 1905) or Harry La Rose (juggler and clown) who were both different men. Harry J. Rose (career ended when he went to prison in 1902; died 1917) was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to Sing Sing prison for killing his wife. I also uploaded a picture to commons of Harry J. Rose. IBDB mixed up some of the various Harry Rose actors. I've contacted the editors.

Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Women of the Eiffel Tower

Women of the Eiffel Tower Edit-a-thon Saturday morning 20 June 2026 - 10.30-12.30 UK time

Join us to make the women whose names have been proposed for addition to the Eiffel Tower more visible on Wikipedia in this online community edit-a-thon.

When the news was announced in January, 23 of the named women didn't have an English language Wikipedia page, and some of the existing pages left something to be desired...

The good news is that there is now a page for each woman in both French and English but there are still lots of improvements needed, images to source and translations to be made into other languages.

A number of English language pages are needed for some of their places of education and employment, as well as for other notable female colleagues. Not to mention linking the women to their male colleagues, their name pages, professional pages etc and getting them into the correct categories.

The Eiffel Women project is timed to end with Wikimania in Paris in July this year - the 72 names won't be on the Eiffel Tower quite yet, but we can make sure that they are on wiki and looking good!

Saturday's community edit-a-thon is suitable for people with some experience of editing on Wikipedia.

How to join in

The session will be held on Zoom and details will be sent to all attendees closer to the date. Just register at the link below.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/women-of-the-eiffel-tower-edit-a-thon-tickets-1990315293621

Can't make it?

If you can't join us on the day, the wider project is running until 26 July - more information and join in here Event:EiffelWomen MumphingSquirrel (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2026

Need for further improvement

Today 42 of the 72 women's biographies are rated by ORES (or Rater) as B class or higher. The remaining 30 have now all been brought up to ORES-rated C class. It would be quite an achievement if all 72 could be brought up to at least B class. Access to the Wikipedia Library, frequently reveals pertinent documentation which does not usually appear in normal Goggle searches, By drawing on these sources, it is often possible to upgrade a biography within a reasonably short time. While I realize that most contributors to Women in Red are interested first and foremost in creating new articles, some might like to devote part of their editing time to improving the existing biographies of Eiffel Women. Let's try to collaborate on this over the next few weeks. I for one will be continuing my efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red's Wikimania poster celebrating Women of the Eiffel Tower

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for creating and posting this, Rosie. It's good to see Wikimania is taking the Eiffel Women seriously but it's a pity the text referring to the Eiffel Women on the poster is so small. Any chance of introducing a larger type size or perhaps simply adding something like "Meet the 72 Eiffel Women" above the photos? I've recently been putting quite a bit of time and effort into improving these biographies and will continue doing so over the next few weeks.--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Ian good idea, and done. Now the same size as the info at the bottom of the poster.
• All, the Wikimania Poster Session will occur on Thursday, 23 June, 10:30-11:30 Paris time. I don't know if it will be viewable by the online attendees (click here to register), but if any of you are at Wikimania, please stop by and take a look and take a photo! P.S. I'm sorry I was unable to do a better job of lining up the photos. As it is, I hope the imperfection appears to be "artistic" rather than a sloppy job by an inexperienced poster creative. If you do know how to align them, and you have time/inclination to do so, and want access to the google slide, ping me; deadline for final versions is June 28. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• I like the "artistic" appearance. Alignment would not be helpful.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  I second that. The "artistic" layout is part of the appeal. It ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Additional input on Draft:Amita Gupta welcome - about a professor and division chief at Johns Hopkins Univ School of Medicine

I had a great interaction previously on this page about Draft:Amita_Gupta and with help from others I've added supporting refs/text/photo. While I wait for action at AFC, I wonder if anyone could take another look - my sense is that this should be a slam-dunk (by WP:PROF criteria) but my COI is likely an impediment (I know her - but that doesn't affect her notability). Any assistance appreciated. — soupvector (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I made a few edits. If she authored any books, you should add them in a ==Selected works== section. That she is the author of 300+ research publications is significant to me, but I have my own bias about that (founder WP:WPWW). --Rosiestep (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I also made a few edits. She meets NPROF C5 as the Florence Sabin Professor of Medicine (named professorship), so it should be accepted. Her relationship to Vanita should be sourced. I would also explain in more detail what her most impactful research actually is; this should ideally be sourced to independent academic discussions such as background sections of research works or reviews by people not affiliated with her. JoelleJay (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link (Peachy Keenan AfD)

There is an AfD discussion re: our article about the conservative commentator and pseudonymous author Peachy Keenan. As the subject lies within the purview of this wikiproject, it seems appropriate to table the matter on this Talk page. (I have no vested intertest and my own point of view about the subject herself is irrelevant—although I did remove a PROD back in March.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)