Talk:Martha Hughes Cannon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martha Hughes Cannon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Martha Hughes Cannon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Martha Hughes Cannon has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 10, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
December 5, 2024	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Harold B. Lee Library

	This article is related to the Harold B. Lee Library holdings. Learn more about this collaborative project to improve coverage related to the BYU library's holdings, and how you can help here.Harold B. Lee LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee LibraryTemplate:WikiProject Harold B. Lee LibraryHarold B. Lee Library-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is related to the 19th century Mormonism and Americana collection at the Harold B. Lee Library.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement 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.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania 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.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: State Legislatures / Utah Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs) has been paid by BYU. Their editing has included contributions to this article. COI declarations on userpage
Gandhi (BYU) (talk · contribs) has been paid by BYU. Their editing has included contributions to this article. COI declarations on userpage

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under plural marriage, I edited the block quote to show that the second paragraph was not part of the quoted text. Jaj243 (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Information

I work at BYU library and am using the resources of the library to add information on Cannon and add in-text citations. If there's an issue please let me know. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't find a source for the dates the Hughes family left England or arrived in New York. I don't have a source for the family traveling in the Underwriter either.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martha Hughes Cannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061122055610/http://www.utah.gov/capitoltour/page2_level2.html to http://www.utah.gov/capitoltour/page2_level2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Martha Hughes Cannon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I make any mistakes.

With the rapid advancement of medicine, Brigham Young began recommending that church members become doctors. In a October 1873 General Conference address, Brigham Young encouraged women, specifically, to enter the medical field and become doctors: repetitive.
On August 13, 1878, Cannon was one of four women set apart for medical studies and practice by the Mormon Church. President John Taylor and his counselor George Q. Cannon set them apart. The four women were Romania B. Pratt, Ellis R. Shipp, Maggie Shipp, and Martha Hughes Cannon. Repetitive; just say "the other three women"; no need to list Cannon twice. And shouldn't we still be calling her Hughes at this point? Although if the sources we're using use "Cannon" for her early years we can go along with that.
Romania and Ellis had already received their medical degrees while Maggie and Martha were heading out to earn theirs: Generally you use last names; any reason to use first names here? I see two are surnamed Shipp, but we could make it "Pratt and Ellis Shipp had...while Cannon and Maggie Shipp".
When the secrecy around her marriage to Angus Cannon is discussed, the reader hasn't yet been told about the legal context for plural marriages (except in the lead, which is supposed to include only material in the body). I think we need some explanation at this point.
her letters to Angus grow with jealousy and resentment: suggest "show increasing jealousy and resentment".
30th annual convention at the American Woman Suffrage Association: shouldn't this be "of the", rather than "at the"?
After the Edmunds-Tucker Act passed, were Martha and Angus still technically husband and wife?
It seems odd that Cannon and her husband are opposing each other in the election, and are of different parties; were they estranged by this time?
You mention her speech at Seneca Falls twice at separate points in the article; can these be combined to a single description?
The influence of newspaper and religious leaders: either "newspapers", or if it's just the Deseret News, then "the newspaper".
Suggest linking KUED.
I'd cut the links in the "See also" section that are already linked in the article.
Not an issue for GA, but FYI: you have "accessdate" parameters on a couple of book citations that aren't needed. That parameter is used for accessing web information, and indicates the date on which you accessed the URL. That can help others find archived versions of a web page, since web page contents can change over time. For a book there's no risk of the content changing so the access date isn't needed.
I'd eliminate the "Find a Grave" link; it's not a reliable source as it's crowd-sourced. I think the obituary for Angus should be linked from his article, not Martha's; the same goes for the biographical sketch.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi (BYU), are you planning to work on this article? I'll fail this in another week if I don't hear from you. If you need more time, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, thank you for your review! I will finish up your suggested edits this week.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I have finished my edits. If there is anything else that needs work please let me know. Thank you for reviewing this article! Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good. I made a couple more edits based on my comments above. Promoting to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should "first female state senator" be moved closer to the beginning of the lead?

Guidelines for biographies suggest the opening sentence should establish notability, and one would assume being the first female to be elected state senator is an accomplishment notable enough to include.

From Lead guidelines:

"The first sentence should usually state:

Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also WP:NCNOB). Handling of the subject's name is covered under MOS:NAMES.
Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.
One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)"

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

The article uses a lot of long paragraphs. These should be broken up into smaller paragraphs to help with readability. This include the lead, and the first paragraph of "Plural marriage and exile"
On the other end of the spectrum, "Legacy and honors" is a list of disjointed entries that are not formatted correctly. I suggest that this be rewritten as prose.
There are uncited statements in the article.

Is anyone interested in working on this, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Martha Hughes Cannon

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses a lot of long paragraphs. These should be broken up into smaller paragraphs to help with readability. This includes the lead and the first paragraph of "Plural marriage and exile". On the other end of the spectrum, "Legacy and honors" is a list of disjointed entries that are not formatted correctly. I suggest that this be rewritten as prose. There are also uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the note at WT:MED. I have to confess that this doesn't strike me as a list of very significant problems.

The lead is a single paragraph of 220 words, which is a not-unreasonable size for a paragraph (in academic writing; bloggers are doubtless encouraged to have shorter paragraphs). The first paragraph of ==Plural marriage and exile==, at ~440 words, did strike me as long, but that was easily fixed by pressing the Return button once. If you feel that the lead paragraph should also be split, then I encourage you to go find some plausible spot in that paragraph and press the Return button yourself.

==Legacy and honors== sections are frequently presented as lists. I searched for "Legacy and honors", checked the first five articles in the results, and found that three were bulleted lists and two were prose. The tendency towards being disjointed is probably due to the facts, as there's no obvious way to unify so many disparate things (e.g., there's a statue...they lobbied for a stamp...someone else used her as a character in a play...).

I grant that using - formatting instead of * is not how we do things on wiki, but having an IP editor not know how to wikify a list is not really grounds for de-listing. I've fixed it. It took me about 30 seconds.

As for the uncited statements, every paragraph (but not the first bullet point in the ==Legacy and honors== section, which was added just a couple of months ago) contains at least one inline citation, and I suspect that those (especially the books) cover more than just the single sentence the citation is attached to. Perhaps, if you are interested, you would check those sources and duplicate the citations. Unfortunately, earlier this year, we ran off the editor most likely to volunteer to do this for you, so if you want it done, you're probably going to have to do it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z, I appreciate the work that you've done with taking deficient older GAs to GAR, but I don't think this one needed it. Paragraph length is easily fixable and doesn't warrant delisting. Likewise, the legacy and honors listing formatting issues were easily fixable and not worth delisting over. The uncited text is not particularly significant in quantity or claims here. I'm at a keep with this one. It's not perfect, but not so deficient that I think it ought to be delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm and WhatamIdoing: While some editors have wanted me to WP:BEBOLD, there have been times in the past when I follow that advice I am critised for making changes without being a subject-matter expert. This is why I am more willing to bring an article to GAR instead. Another reason to bring this article to GAR is to find someone who will adopt the article and ensure that it is maintained after the GAR is complete: an editor who makes the fixes now is more likely to check in on the article after changes are made to ensure that it maintains its quality. This article might have been smaller fixes than other articles, but if nominated now at GAN I am not sure that it would pass with the problems it possesses. I'm happy that this article has some easy fixes and hope this can continue. I added cn tags to the places where they might be needed. Z1720 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with three of the four CN tags. The other one is not very significant and the information can be removed if nobody can find a good source. I did have to resort to LDS Living for one of the citations, though. BetterDays2020 should probably be replaced as a source - it's currently a double citation for a statement, although I have no idea if the other citation covers all of the information. utahbecky.com is the website of Becky Edwards (politician) so I think that one is fine for what is being sourced to it (information about a political caucus). Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are editors who are critical about everything – even for following policies and processes correctly (but not according to that editor's mistaken ideas of what's right) – but I doubt that anyone would criticize you for fixing list formatting.

Since the kerfuffle earlier this year about LDS editors, I doubt that anyone will be willing to adopt this article, or any other article about LDS subjects. I do appreciate you adding fact tags to show the specific concerns; that really can be a helpful contribution (especially when it's just four, and not, say, 40). I found sources about the health building, though neither of them specify the date of the dedication ceremony itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the issues are quite minor. Keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.