Talk:Katherine Hughes (activist)

Unclear/confusing passages

I was able to make sense out of the following passage:

"Little is known about Hughes' early career, but she is believed to have been a missionary to Catholics in the late 19th century."

. . .by changing the words in italics to "Catholic missionary to Canadian Indians".

However, the following passage leaves me puzzled:

"...Hughes traveled alone through the Peace River and Athabasca districts of northern Alberta, acquiring artifacts for the Alberta archives."

What kind of artifacts are we talking about? My best guess is that they were acquired from the First Nations people who lived in that region. If that is correct, it should be stated explicitly rather than being left to the reader's imagination. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anomalous+0. I didn't write that part of the text, but I'll see if I can figure out what exactly it is talking about, because you're right, it shouldn't be left to imagination. As for artifacts, I'm not sure what is meant and I agree that it should be made clear, especially in that context. Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment, I appreciate it. Do you have any suggestions for what I should do? I'll try to do some of my research, and edit the article, but I'd like to know what you think once I have done so. Clovermoss (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep. I'm pinging you because you added the text about artifacts here [1]. I appreciate everything you've done to improve the article, and I think that clarifying the context about the artifacts would make this article even better. I noticed that the source is indicated as open access, but I can't access it. It requires a subscription to see it, and I'm not comfortable signing up for a 7-day free trial. I would if I could but there are reasons I can't, like not having a credit card. Is there any way you might be able to check the source to see if there's anything mentioned about how these artifacts were aquired? If there isn't, do you know if there's anything else that might be useful to look for or know? Clovermoss (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Clovermoss, The newspaper article used as a source didn't have more to say on the subject, nor do I have access to additional sources regarding this woman. Perhaps someone in Canada might? In any case, feel free to remove or reword anything I've added. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Rosiestep. I appreciate it. As for someone in Canada... I'm Canadian and I don't know. I want to do something about all this, so I guess it wouldn't hurt to start thinking about what I might be able to do. I'll let you know if I'm successful in finding anything. Clovermoss (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss, That's absolutely fine. I just wanted to make sure that you hadn't lost interest. Just let me know when you're done with the additions. buidhe 19:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Alright, thanks. I haven't lost interest, at least not yet. I'll let you know when I'm done with the additions, which will probrably be fairly soon. Just a quick question: did you mean to post this in the GA review instead of this section? Clovermoss (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Katherine Hughes (activist)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 17:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. I think it's very close to the GA criteria, but since the article has been expanded, the lead now seems a bit too short for the article. I would try to expand it into a longer paragraph or two paragraphs. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copyvio: uh oh, it looks like either someone has lifted some paragraphs from RTE, or else they lifted it from Wikipedia. See here for text matches. (t · c) buidhe 17:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, that was the added paragraph that had the citation needed added to it. I didn't add that into the article, but obviously I'll try to fix it. I'm assuming I need to rewrite it so it is no longer a CV? I remember something about making revdel requests for copyrighted content, I'm assuming I'll need to do that once it's fixed? Clovermoss (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ref layout: I have fixed the problem of duplicate refs. This is not the only way to solve it, but in general you should avoid repeating the same full reference with a different page number. (t · c) buidhe 17:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Verifiability: Ideally, for increased verifiability for book chapters and journal articles, one should provide the exact page number where the information is found. However, I think the current format complies with GA expectations. (t · c) buidhe 17:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'll work on the lead. I'm going to be a bit busy for the rest of the afternoon, but I'll try to wrap my head around the best way to improve the lead within the next day or two, because it definitely is short right now. I noticed that there is an oppose on the copyright violations section. Where/how should I fix that? Clovermoss (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Clovermoss, The copyvio is that some paragraphs from the article match a RTE article. It's also possible that the article copied from Wikipedia, but if not then it has to be rewritten. See here for the identical text. (t · c) buidhe 18:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I've rewritten the text that was a copyright violation. Do you think that it is adequate? I have added two sentences to the lead, but I think I still need to expand it. Clovermoss (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I checked the copyvio with the latest version of the article [2]. It looks like some of it has been cleared up, but there are still a few sentences in the third paragraph of "Work for Irish independence" section that are an issue. I notice that this was added by another editor so not your fault at all, but it does need to be fixed before GA status can be reached. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: I've rewritten the text in that paragraph, too. Has the copyright violation problem been solved? It's gone from 49% to 11% according to the tool you used. [3] Clovermoss (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! Looks good now. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: I'll spend a bit more time soon improving the article. I have tomorrow off-work so I'll have some free time. Sorry I haven't done much the past few days, I've been really busy with my job. Apart from expanding the lead, is there anything else I should be focusing on? Clovermoss (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Some things that ideally should be clarified, but not an obstacle to GA promotion:
  • Archbishop O'Brien: Man and Churchman—state the publication date
  • Adding content from the The West and Beyond listed in further reading to the article; it would broaden coverage of her literary output. I can access the relevant content using Google Books preview.
  • Is there any more info about her activity in Catholic Women's League of Canada?
  • I'd also like to see more specific info on the secret tasks (or other work) she performed for the Irish Self-Determination League.
  • Confusingly, her book The Life and Work of Sir William Van Horne is discussed in two places. Consolidating them would make more sense, as well as stating when she got around to finishing the book.
  • It's also confusing that the article states "Hughes emigrated to the United States in 1905" after "In 1913, Hughes moved to London, England". I would move the sentence about the United States to where it belongs chronologically. Also, it appears she went back to Canada soon after as she was working in Alberta in 1908? If this could be clarified for the reader it would be great.
  • Overall, great work, just a few things that can be ironed out.

(t · c) buidhe 01:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: I still have a few things to work out, but I've dealt with about half the list so far. I've added the publication date for Archibishop O'Brien: Man and Churchman. I've added some content from the West and Beyond. I removed the duplicate content about Sir William Van Horne but I still have to work on consolidating some of the content I removed into the writing section, in addition to when the book was finished. I added a paragraph about the CWL. I'll try to figure out the rest of this by Friday/Saturday, as I have those days off from work. Thank you for your patience, I really appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Clovermoss, Thanks for the update! Looks great so far. Take as much time as you need. (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I've added some more information about her writing. In regards to emigration, I can't quite figure out the timeline. Part of the issue is that the "Hughes emigrated to the United States in 1905" is cited to an Ottawa Citizen article from newspapers.com that I can't access. Since she died in New York, presumably she stayed there later in life (but I can't verify that). In regards to her secret tasks/work in the Irish Self-Determination League, I think that it would be hard to find more information about that unless I managed to find a copy of and read Katherine Hughes: A Life and a Journey by Pádraig Ó Siadhail. Clovermoss (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Clovermoss, Great! I've requested access to the Ottawa Citizen article. Depending on what it says I may make a minor change to the article, but otherwise I think it meets the GA criteria so I will pass it. Congratulations on your first GA! (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I did actually end up buying that book. I'm still in the process of reading it, but I might make more improvements over time now that I have access to it. Is there anything in general I should keep in mind? I've never really read an entire book with the intention of improving a Wikipedia article so there might be something obvious I'm missing. The main thing I'd think that would be important to keep in mind would be to not add excessive details and just stick with important events that are missing from the current article? Clovermoss (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I would try to keep the proportions of the article relatively similar to that found in the book or other reliable sources, not focusing too much on one detailed area. On the other hand, the article is currently 1498 words and it could be expanded a lot before the length becomes a problem. One heuristic I've found helpful is "would the average reader's understanding benefit from this information"? If so, add it. (t · c) buidhe 05:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That is helpful! Thank you very much. I'll keep you updated. I'm a fast reader, but I'm much slower when I'm taking notes so it's difficult to give an accurate estimate for how long that might take. Clovermoss (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Katherine Hughes (activist) → Katherine Angelina Hughes – I think that the article title should be changed to Katherine Angelina Hughes, which is her full name and currently a redirect to this article. I'm proposing this here because it could potentially be controversial to change the article title of a GA. My rationale is that she's known for more than just her activism and that the main reason I had the article title the way it is now is because that's how the redlink showed up in the Women in Red list. If I went back in time, I would have started the article with this title instead. Clovermoss (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia's standard process for naming articles about people is to use the common name (i.e. the name by which they're usually best known) with an occupational disambiguator if necessary, not necessarily their full name. The only way it would be appropriate to use the proposed title instead of the existing title is if "Katherine Angelina Hughes" was actually how the sources routinely refer to her, which it clearly isn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME. BBQboffin (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. We don't add middle names that are not commonly used just for disambiguation purposes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Bearcat and Necrothesp: That makes sense, especially the how sources commonly refer to her part, it's typically just Katherine Hughes. Is there a different alternative for disambiguation, maybe? The main reason it bugs me is that she wasn't only known for her activism, but she was also a journalist, an author, etc. Using the middle name seemed like a solution to that, but I understand that we can't just use it to make it easier to disambiguate. Clovermoss (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't object to Katherine Hughes (journalist), which was her main career. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expansion

Since it doesn't really make much sense to include future comments about improving the article under the GA review, I'm starting this section. I have Katherine Hughes: A Life and Journey which is an entire book about Hughes. I'm reading it and hoping to expand the article with this as a source. If anyone has any concerns or input while that's happening, let me know. Clovermoss (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I'm trying to use the sfn template like the Posner ref does to avoid duplicate references which used to be an issue in the article before. I tried to follow what I saw in the markup for that, but it's not working. Can you help me figure out what I'm doing wrong? Clovermoss (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I got rid of a duplicate citation, which fixed all the ref errors I was seeing. Did that resolve the issue? (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think so? Thank you. I thought the issue with the duplicate ref was because of something I was trying to add. I didn't think to check the Further reading section, although it makes sense now that that was what the issue was. Clovermoss (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)