An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.
Note: If a review is started, I will try my best to respond promptly. If I do not respond within 48 hours, I'm probably busy in real life. Since I have obligations as a student, I'm almost always more active on weekends. Clovermoss (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
This article 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism 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.
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 . 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)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The article is good quality but quite short for a GA article. That would be OK if there wasn't more to say about her, but her entry at Dictionary of Canadian Biography—not to mention the works in the further reading section—has a lot more details. They should be included in this article in order to fulfill broadness criterion. buidhe 20:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)