Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Assessment

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I just wanna' say your doin' a great job and looking great doin' it - Julie ///

Peer reviews edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you guys have a mechanism for asking for peer reviews? I'm overhauling and creating new articles and want to make sure I'm conforming to expectations before I go too much farther. For instance, just created this one Sherry Thomas and wondered if it was a good template. Another: Linda Goodnight Thx plange (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Plange: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers would be the place to ask for peer reviews or anything/everything else. BTW, thanks for contributing to this project. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Importance scale edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Coming here from Talk:Hadewijch#Project ratings. I've been looking at some Medieval woman writer's articles to get a clearer view of where they are ranged on the importance scale of this project:

Clare of Assisi – not adopted in the project. She might probably, in which case I suppose a "high" importance would be in order.
Hildegard of Bingen – "top" importance for this project: seems correct – I'd consider her an excellent example of a "top" importance Medieval woman writer.
Héloïse – "high" importance for this project, seems correct, and an excellent example of the type.

As for Hadewijch, the importance of which as a woman writer is certainly quite below the above, I'd continue to suggest "low" importance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Low importance edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To state that a living person is of low importance on an article's talk page is demeaning and might be preceived as insulting to the article subject. I know how it is meant, but you cannot automatically derive the meaning from reading on the talk page about you that you are of low importance. Maybe the assessment can be rephrased? --Gereon K. (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this - thanks Gereon K for making this point. I think the categorisation is potentially very flawed. What criteria are being used to determine each category of low/mid importance? Are these categories sympathetic to the struggles women have faced for visibility and status?

If wikipedia is seeking to increase its representation of women, and improve entries on women then it is definitely inappropriate to denigrate them as we seek to rectify historical denigration. I agree absolutely Gereon K - it seems really wrong.

Thanks again - Milo Quest MiloQuest (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic