Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fanny Bullock Workman

Fanny Bullock Workman[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 8, 2015 by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Bullock Workman shows "Votes for Women"

Fanny Bullock Workman (1859–1925) was an American geographer, cartographer, explorer, travel writer, and mountaineer, notably in the Himalaya. She was one of the first female professional mountaineers; she not only explored but also wrote about her adventures. She set several women's altitude records, published eight travel books with her husband, and championed women's rights and women's suffrage. Educated in the finest schools available to women, she was introduced to climbing in New Hampshire, married William Hunter Workman, and traveled the world with him. The couple had two children, but left them in schools and with nurses. Workman saw herself as a New Woman who could equal any man. The Workmans wrote books about each trip and Workman frequently commented on the state of the lives of women that she saw. They explored several glaciers and conquered several mountains of the Himalaya, eventually reaching 23,000 feet (7,000 m), a women's altitude record at the time. Workman became the first woman to lecture at the Sorbonne and the second to speak at the Royal Geographical Society. She received many medals of honor and was recognized as one of the foremost climbers of her day. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): no recent female mountaineer
Main editors: Adam Cuerden, Figureskatingfan (Christine), Wadewitz
Promoted: 2014
Reasons for nomination: a women showing a sign for votes for women in March
Support as nominator. Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality article. Great contribution from Adam Cuerden, Figureskatingfan (Christine), Wadewitz. — Cirt (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and per Cirt. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no slot available for this in March. That being so, may I suggest that it runs on April 8, the anniversary of Adrienne's passing? That would, I think, be a fine tribute to her and to women generally. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I saw several slots open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other claims on these "open" slots. TFA has to represent the full range of available articles, not just the claims of the more vociferous. I advise that you move this to a "date" slot, before 8 April gets booked by another. Brianboulton (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, but feel free to change if an article with a closer date connection shows up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support but also think it would be good to be in March as March is Women's history Month. I only see six women's biographies scheduled, and several of those are of modern celebrities. I think we are a little light on women's articles and I see no reason not to swap out something into April to put this in March, though running it in April beats not running it at all. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An interesting & informative article. I too would prefer to see this in March; it strikes me as sad that for Women's History Month, TFA will be showcasing at quick count 6 male bios & 4 female bios, as well as 2 all-male football teams & 2 other non-bio articles with a male subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your wish, but as stated above, TFA has to represent the full range of available featured articles. It is unforunate but true that there is a huge imbalance between male-related and female-related articles, in Wikipedia as a whole and in the featured articles still eligible for TFA. This imbalance is particularly acute in the "qualified" biographies; there are presently 224 male biographies, and 17 female biographies, waiting to be TFA. In these circumstances a 6:4 ratio of male to female biographies in March doesn't seem unreasonable. There is also an artwork with a female subject, and a song by Rihanna. I would have thought that honouring Adrienne on 8 April was at least as worthy as squeezing another female biography into March. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

224 male : 17 female biographies eligible for TFA is a very depressing statistic. (I'd have thought Adrienne would be 100% behind Women's History Month myself.) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way to improve that statistic is to bring more women's biographies to featured standard. I have written nine, of which six have been TFA, so I feel I'm doing my bit. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately most of the women whose articles I've created or worked on extensively simply don't have enough reference material freely available to get to FA. It's hard enough to get a decent start article on a living scientist who hasn't retired or won a major prize. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support for April. Imagine that the TFA possibilities are like a selection box of biscuits. Everyone likes the chocolate-coated choc-chip choc-centered crunchy ones; nobody really likes the plain wafers. Brian and Chris can give us a month of choc-chip crunch TFAs, and then we'll have to go for longer on just plain wafers with fewer choc-chip crunchies to brighten the selection in between. Now imagine that the selection box predominately consists of biscuits that nobody much likes and no three people can agree on what the best biscuit(s) is/are, and you get an idea of the difficulty in scheduling. Yes it would be nice to have lots more articles about women but we don't. Many of the articles about men are milhist biographies and there is little scope for writing equal numbers of milhist biographies about women, for obvious historical reasons. Not using one of our women biog FAs in March so that we can use it in tribute to one of its primary authors in April is a good thing. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have two milhist biographies about women at GA at the moment, and am working on another one now. If I bring it to FAC, would you be willing to review it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Adrienne might support what I suggest: hold this for 8 March 2016, as a better tribute to her than the day of her death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Gerda. If this can't go in March this year, let's hold it. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian has now finished scheduling March. It will be up to Crisco whether to run this in April or to leave it for another time. Whenever it runs, that image is unusable on the main page - nothing can be understood of that image at main page size, and readers shouldn't have to click to work out on earth is going on. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]