💞 Please don't be afraid to reach out! I'm always happy to chat, and I reply to messages on my talk page as soon as possible 💞 Please remaincivil, per Wikipedia's guidelines
Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published.
Nominations for the upcomingWikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is availablehere. If you are interested in running, please sign uphere by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of thecurrent coord team.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is the GA nominator forGeometry Dash. I don't mean to rush you, but it's been a while since you've made any comments. I addressed your concerns about 10 days ago and replied to your post a few days ago, but I still haven't heard anything. Just checking in to make sure you were still okay with the review.ZKevinTheCat (talk)13:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! First of all, I'm so sorry for the late reply! I was very busy off of Wikipedia. Second of all, I believe that the article could very much be passed, but I'm still pondering over the game's history section. I'm not sure if a second opinion may be needed.🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★00:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm sorry it's taken me so long. I've been busy off of Wikipedia. Expect me to open this today or tomorrow depending on when I'm available, and expect the review to start on Sunday!🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★20:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Running from October 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event with the themeWhat Women Do! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least31 different occupations or professions (or broader roles in society) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
I'm delighted to see a new medievalist around the place, especially one who's already launched full-tilt into our content review processes. You know, I had no idea there was aWP:CANTWP? Actually, I think you might have been the first person to notice that task force exists in the last decade. If you ever decide to take any more of those to GA, I'd be more than happy to review, just let me know. (Also rather happy to not have to do the work myself... they've been on my task list for ages.)
I see you've been doing a lot of reviewing work of theWP:RATER variety. (This too we have in common. I did alot of that early on.) Can I interest you in a somewhat more advanced reviewer role?WP:AFC always has a monstrous backlog and we'd love to have you. There's a lot of slogging to be done there, it's true. But you also get to be the one handing out the kind of acceptances that made you so happy when you started editing, and that's very rewarding. --asilvering (talk)21:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd absolutely love to!! I've actually wanted to do AFC since I got more active on Wikipedia, and now that my account is well over 90 days old, I've applied.🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★23:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see it. If you have any questions, the AFC talk page is open and welcoming. There's also a Discord server forWP:NPP (we've got a channel there) if you're interested:[1]. --asilvering (talk)23:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats Rosie!! I never thought you would become an AFC reviewer, let alone be referred to one, seeing as you're one of the best GAN reviewers! Just for the record, I am also an AFC reviewer. I occasionally review and accept drafts (see my AFC reviewshere). I also havepage mover andtemplate editor rights, which only 436 and 196 users have respectively.JuniperChill (talk)23:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really like it! And I know it was a joke, but I love reviewing articles (hence why I think I got AfC rights without fully meeting the criteria), so I saw it as an opportunity :)🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★13:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia.
Progress ("moving the needle"):Statistics available via various tools: previously,Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period:
19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women)
Hi Reverosie. I am currently reviewingQueen's Theatre, Hornchurch (review) and a good portion of the sources are inaccessible to me either cause their offline or require a subscription. How do you deal with them and how do I proceed? Its good that I didn't start the prose only to then come to a halt.JuniperChill (talk)09:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
First of all, don't be afraid to ask the nominator for access to sources or proof that the article is backed up by a source you can't access yourself! That is something quite important.
Second of all, what do you mean by offline? Most books should be found online (+ Internet Archive and Google Books frequently have the entire thing there for you).
With books, sometimes you need to get creative. With google books, you often have to search for page numbers and key words when you can't access the full PDF in order to find the right quote and verify a source.
But most importantly, GA reviews are not FA reviews! Make sure thatall of the citations match up with the sources, but don't reviewevery single source or you'll drive yourself mad. If there's anything else I can help you with, please let me know!🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★22:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Offline sources on Wikipedia are defined as a source that is not published on the internet (ie, books and newspapers). I don't really read books these days. I will get into reviewing that article tomorrow by asking the nominator if I happen to land on an offline source, seeing as its cited to an offline newspaper. Seeing as the article I'm going to review has 66 sources, is checking 10 (15%) enough? I also note that I accidentally reviewed two articles that contain the word "Queen" on them, the other beingTalk:Queenstown MRT station/GA1JuniperChill (talk)23:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While articles with a lot of sources therefore need more to be reviewed, it comes down to quite a few factors:
1. How many sources are citedin total?
2. How many citations come from thesame source?
- Accounting for citations that come from the same page of the same source?
3. How many different types of sources are there? Are some easier to check than others?
- This isn't to say that a source being harder to check means you should skip over it, but that it doesn't hurt to review a few extra sources that are easier for you.
Based on all of these factors, it comes down to your own preference, but unless an article doesn't cite many sources (which is usually justified by a shorter length), 10-20% is generally a good rule of thumb to follow :)
And remember:
1. Even if an editor is trustworthy,NEVER skip a spot check. Working with somebody more often means reviewing a bit less, but not skipping over it entirely.
2. If something that looks problematic comes up in the spot check, most (if not all) of the time, you should assume good faith and point it out instead of trying to punish the nominator.🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★23:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for helping me! This is the first time that I needed to help with reviewing an article for GA because of access to sources. I started reviewing the prose of the article today. I have decided to check two offline newspaper sources, one paywalled source, and six free-to-access sources (including one PDF).
I would say you're one of the best GAN reviewer's I've ever seen in my two years of editing Wikipedia! considering you started reviewing GAs within a month of editing! Maybe I could also be in a position to help users with GA, as I currently do with DYK.JuniperChill (talk)16:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mystory today is about a mezzo as a thinking person, DYK? (The nomination wasn't by me, which probably helped to a short review.) - Look at the video if you have a few minutes. I never saw her on stage, but (in 2022) the last Carmen production at the Bastille Opéra that she was in, - see music. --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! - I am proud to have brought two performing women to the main page. Sadly, death kept both from performing more, one sooner, the other much later. If you have little time just listen to the one who died young and see if it touches you (intoday's story, - I don't want to sprinkle youtube links outside my user pages). Latest pics from a day to the opera in Frankfurt, and afterwards (because train service is only once an hour) a lovely stroll along the Main river with illumination and the moon reflected. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Reverosie, I noticed something about your user page on Simple Wikipedia - Most of the userboxes are redlinked because the templates are from Wikipedia, so they don't exist.Seanwk :)(Talk |Contribs)03:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been the smoothest, friendliest interaction I've had on this site yet.Thank you very much! for your efforts on the GA review and everything else.PS: keep an eye out forBarhebraeus's GA nomination once I finish it. Less crusades, more Mongol on that Syriac author
Hogshine has given you aflower! Flowers bringsWikiLove and hoping this one has made your day awesome.Flowers are such a nice pretty things/plant that showsLove, Share the love by giving someone else a flower, whether it is someone that had misunderstanding with you or your best friend. Spread the WikiLove.
Spread the loving power of flowers by adding {{subst:Flowers}} to someone's talk page with a friendly and loving message!.
Thank you so much for the kind words!!! I'm very interested in medieval history as a whole, so I'd be happy to review Barhebraeus's article in the future :)🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★18:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! for your efforts on the GA review and everything else.PS: keep an eye out forBarhebraeus's GA nomination once I finish it. Less crusades, more Mongol on that Syriac author
