# Talk:Helen Herron Taft

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Under the section Early Years it states "In 1879, she met William Howard Taft at a bobsledding party in Cincinnati; he was 22 years old, she was 18. He asked her out for the first time in February 1880, but they did not date regularly until 1882."  However, on the Wikipedia article for William, under the subsection Ohio Lawyer and Judge, this article states "It is not clear when Taft met Helen Herron (often called Nellie), but it was no later than 1880, when she mentioned in her diary receiving an invitation to a party from him."  No source is provided for either sentence.  So, anyone know which is accurate?  The two articles should align.  CPAScott (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Helen Herron Taft. 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/20040102084814/http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/ht27.html to http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/ht27.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) 07:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Helen Herron Taft/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 02:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


### Review
What a spectacular hat - I shall take this on for review. Mujinga (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


### Copyvio check
Earwig doesn't turn up much although "with a widened interest in world politics and a cosmopolitan circle of friends." could be 
phrased differently


### Images
Pix are all relevant and appropriately licensed - actually though for File:Recollections of full years (1914) (14786297583).jpg per this chart I would recommend adding PD-US-expired since it is taken from a book published in the US before 1928
It's not a pass/fail issue, but for accessibility reasons I'd recommend adding alt descriptions per WP:MOSALT


### References
Looking good overall
Anderson, Greta (November 1, 2015). and  Waldrup, Carole Chandler (April 6, 2016) just need the year, not day and month
Taft, Helen Herron (1914). Recollections of Full Years. ISBN 9780722243220. - this could be put into a Selected works section


### Prose
I always do the lead last - it is a decent summary of the article, nice one
"Herron married Taft in 1886, hoping that he would realize her dream of becoming first lady" - did she really think that in 1886? doesn't seem to be supported by the article below Mujinga (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
per MOS:SURNAME, "Nellie's many siblings" should be "Herron's many siblings" and same in other cases eg Taft/William (and in the lead)
"She wished to write or perform music, but neither developed" - repetition of "but" from the previous sentence, could just use "and"
" Among the people she invited were William and his brother Horace." should be " Among the people she invited were Taft and his brother Horace."
"William attempted to court Nellie" could just be "Taft courted Nellie"
" Lifelong self-doubt caused Nellie to avoid commitment to William" - is lifelong necessary to add here?
"a position which she had gotten for him " - is gotten ok to use on wikipedia? just flagging it up since as a Br-Eng speaker it seems informal, but it doesn't appear at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
"William's career came to a crossroads in 1906 when President Roosevelt considered nominating him for a position on the Supreme Court, while at the same time momentum grew for a Taft presidency. Nellie was vehemently opposed to William taking a position on the Supreme Court"  - repetition of "position on the Supreme Court"
"she removed the trophy heads that Theodore Roosevelt had mounted on the walls" - don't need to link Roosevelt again, I suppose Theodore is necessary to differentiate him from his wife
"Though Nellie did not identify as a feminist, she supported women's rights and used her position to advance the cause" - could link feminist and women's rights


### Spotchecks
3 "while her mother was the daughter and the sister of U.S. congressmen" - fine
7 "As a teenager, Nellie would rebel against the societal expectations for upper class women; by the age of 15 she had secretly begun smoking cigarettes, drinking whiskey, and gambling." - fine
1 "As a young adult, she worked for her father in his law office. She balanced this with her social expectations following her debut, which she enjoyed despite considering it to be frivolous." - i think this could summarise the relevant sections better. they say: "She dreaded her debut but found the season that followed it more enjoyable than she had anticipated" and "the pleasures of the social world which she professed to regard as 'frivolities'"
2 "William's career came to a crossroads in 1906 when President Roosevelt considered nominating him for a position on the Supreme Court, while at the same time momentum grew for a Taft presidency. Nellie was vehemently opposed to William taking a position on the Supreme Court, fearing it would end any further political aspirations. She personally met with Roosevelt and discouraged him from nominating William in a half hour discussion" - fine
1 "Nellie took an interest in everything relating to her husband's presidency, and she maintained her own opinions on important matters. Though she did not believe that women should be "meddling" in politics, she spoke publicly on her beliefs, even when they contradicted the positions of her husband. She managed his appearance and scheduling to ensure he maintained proper presentation, and she would provide him with political information such as names and statistics as he needed them" - fine
18 "  In June 1912, she attended both the Republican National Convention that re-nominated her husband and the Democratic National Convention that nominated his opponent Woodrow Wilson. She took a front-row seat at the latter in order to deter speakers' criticism of her husband." - fine


### Overall
@Thebiguglyalien:This is a great article on a fascinating woman who could definitely do with a DYK. Sources are reliable, just one query after spotchecks. There's no original research, the article is broad and focused. It is neutral and stable. I'm confident it can be a GA with a few tweaks, outlined above. Feel free to discuss anything, I'll put the article on hold now for a week. This time can be extended by mutual agreement. Mujinga (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've made most of the changes. For her memoir, I included it in the further reading section to go with the other full length biographical books, especially since she has no other published works to her name. It could be moved to another section if that's the standard format, but I feel it's cleaner if all of the books are in one section.
MOS:SURNAME is trickier. I'm aware that using the surname is standard, but after working on a dozen first lady articles, I've found that things can get very muddled with the use of surnames, and a lot of the time it's not clear who is being referred to. In this case, uses of "Taft" would be ambiguous, and the reader would have to try to infer from context every single time. Is there a guide or a standard practice for what to do in situations like this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Great thanks for the reply. Could you mark or strike out what you've done and then we can see what's left to discuss? On the memoir, that's fine I can see your justification there and it's not a pass/fail issue. Mujinga (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done Mujinga (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done thanks for that! Mujinga (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
On MOS:SURNAME, well that literally is the guide. I understand what you are saying but there has been a historical issue with referring to women by their first name. In this particular article I don't see much of a problem with her being Taft and her husband being "her husband" or "William Taft" or "the president", since it's her article. Since I saw you mention elsewhere that you are engaged in the laudable task of bringing all US first ladies up to GA standard, it would be good to have consistency across articles and I'd be happy to take this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red where I'm sure we'd get some helpful replies. Shall I do that or would you like to? Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There's also MOS:SAMESURNAME which says in part: "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing. " Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I did my best to bring the article in compliance with MOS:SURNAME. It works in most places, though there are a few ambiguities. I think the most obvious example is Upon returning to the United States, Taft declined to participate in campaigning. She did advise him during his campaign, however, and she closely followed news coverage of the race so that she would be aware of the criticisms against him. In this case, it's not clear who's being referred to until the next sentence. I'd like to figure out the best way to do this now so I can go back and bring the other first lady articles I've worked on to the same standard and then do it correctly going forward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure - it will definitely help doing this across the board if you want to take the articles to FA. On that specific example, I would suggest for the paragraph:
In 1907, as support for a William Taft presidency grew, the couple traveled across the country in a speaking tour. Taft found the experience more intensive than she had expected, and she was deeply embarrassed by one incident in which she lost track of the week and she was seen playing cards with her husband on the Lord's Day. Afterward, they returned to the Philippines and took a trip to other countries. Upon returning to the United States, her husband declined to participate in campaigning. Taft did advise him during his campaign, however, and she closely followed news coverage of the race so that she would be aware of the criticisms against him. She also advised him as to how his decisions as Secretary of War would affect public opinion.
But of course it's up to you, let me know when you work it through. Good luck with it! Mujinga (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Ironically, I think you just proved my point. Upon returning to the United States, her husband declined to participate in campaigning. That use of Taft wasn't about William, it was about Nellie. I don't feel comfortable calling this a Good Article if it's not obvious who each mention is talking about, but I also don't like excessively using first names. I think this might be an issue that needs broader attention beyond this one article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Not at all, I was working with what you had already written, I wouldn't have made that mistake when writing from scratch - makes more sense for it to be about her. To be honest, I don't think that this issue is that hard to fix or particularly unique to first ladies, it's an issue often encountered when writing about couples with the same last name when each person is notable, for example in Good Articles I've nominated such as Lady Henrietta Berkeley, Mary Clarke (letter writer) or Kitty Lee Jenner (she had five names). I'm happy to wait for you to find a solution that works for you and I'd suggest again Women in Red if you need advice. Mujinga (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I've changed the names to surnames where appropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done Hiya I thought I'd check on progress and wondered if your reply was meant as a complete answer since it was made a few days ago now. I don't think the issue with names is resolved completely since per SAMESURNAME "When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing" but we have (as a non-exhaustive list) sentences like:
Though William was relieved that his term had ended, Nellie was upset by his defeat for reelection.
William considered Nellie to be the politician of the family,
At the same time, William developed a close political and personal friendship with President Roosevelt: a relationship that Nellie encouraged and helped facilitate
Nellie considered it a personal victory when William was elected president in 1908
so Nellie determined that she would ride to the White House with her husband in Roosevelt's place
Roosevelt would even strategize politically with Nellie rather than with William
Some of these sentences could probably be justified as being done for clarity, but not all. Mujinga (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I have fixed all such examples in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Cool I'll take another look Mujinga (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow this is reading really nice now, good job! "Taft's husband considered Taft to be the politician of the family" and "When President Theodore Roosevelt offered Taft's husband the position of Secretary of War in 1904, Taft convinced him to accept, and the Tafts returned to Washington, D.C" both sound a bit peculiar but I'm sure will be ironed out by other editors. Will you take this to FAC? I think it could be a featured article, perhaps after a peer review. Congrats on the good article! Mujinga (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)