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 . 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 . I'm pinging you because you added the text about artifacts here . 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, 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, . 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)

, 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)
 * 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? Clover moss  (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2020 (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&lt;Howl at me•My hunts&gt; 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. Clover moss (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC) CN¥
 * 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)
 * 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. Clover moss  (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)
 * I wouldn't object to Katherine Hughes (journalist), which was her main career. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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. Clover moss (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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? Clover moss  (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 &#183; 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. Clover moss  (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)