Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Smith/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Joseph Smith

edit

Joseph Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Trevdna (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article on Joseph Smith meets the nomination criteria. A recent peer review failed to generate even a single comment; I'm not sure if that meant that no one reviewed it, or that no one could find any problems with it. Regardless, this article is very well-written, stable (disputes have died down to a basically consensus level, despite his being a very controversial figure), and is about a very important figure in Western U.S. religious history. -Trevdna (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Overlinking throughout—both of common English words (breastplate, militia, bureaucrat...) and repeated linking (install this script to catch them).
*Extensive time has been spent on fixing this. Some repeated linking has been left on purpose when a topic comes up more than once in different contexts. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the most densely cited article I've ever seen. While I understand this is a controversial subject, and that citations are a Good Thing, having so many of them packed together like this hampers readability. It seems especially excessive when adjacent cites refer to the same things (refs 373 and 374, for eg). I also wonder for the need to extensively quote the cited material every time.
  • Good point. However, most (if not all) of this citation is necessary to prevent POV warriors (from both sides) from coming in and mucking things up for the article. Smith just inspired (and inspires) so much controversy that the article needs much of this to keep it from people who "know better." This article used to be a merry-go-round of edit wars, POV warriors, sloppy editing and vandalism. The only reason I believe it's settled out so much is because of all these citations, as cumbersome as they might be. It appears that all this citation is the work of some very dedicated heroes who put in very long hours to make sure they were dead on.
That said, is there anywhere in specific that you see that you think we could do without a citation, perhaps condense a few, etc., without giving room for a POV fight?Trevdna (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the overcite is a result of the POV wars.. Those have died down significantly, and I'd be happy to start combining references, and trimming the ones from inside sentences. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The overcite has now been significantly reduced. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the infobox be trimmed? It's really only meant for important stuff that can be conveyed at a glance. I'd thus remove the names of successors (the dispute article link suffices) and the wikiportals. The two "part of a series" templates, too, appear excessive. Aren't all those links repeated in the "main article" links and the boxes at the bottom?

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

edit

It's certainly well-referenced! But I have concerns about the prose, ranging from extreme nitpicking to big-view misgivings about neutrality and comprehensiveness.

  • I have NPOV concerns about the way supernatural aspects of Smith's life story are presented. Sometimes, the article credits these elements to the voice of the speakers of claim them ("Smith said he attempted to remove the plates the next morning but was unsuccessful because the angel prevented him."), but this doesn't appear to be universal; largely, the article reads as though many aspects of the religious story should be taken at face value as factual. Examples include:
    • The last sentence of the short paragraph about Smith's use of seer stones for treasure hunting (in "Early years (1805–27)").
    • Most discussion of the golden plates after "Early years (1805–27)". While the first few references to the plates are written in a manner that does not lend encyclopedic voice to their authenticity, as early as the "Founding a church (1827–30)" section, we have: "Smith transcribed some of the characters (what he called "reformed Egyptian") engraved on the plates and then dictated a translation to his wife." Similarly, "Translation was completed around July 1, 1829."
    • Similar issues affect parts of the "Revelations" and "Distinctive views and teachings" sections. To some extent, there's no NPOV problem when discussing his religious beliefs and teachings in their own terms. The fundamental problem is that it is difficult or impossible to see where the article distinguishes between describing these beliefs and describing historical fact.
This is certainly improved, but I'm not sure there's not more distance to cover. In the Book of Mormon section, for example, there's a paragraph that begins "Smith never said how he produced the Book of Mormon,...." Surely, there's got to be a reliable source somewhere to cite the possibility that he didn't translate the text from anything? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's in the previous paragraph where it says, "...non-Mormon academics have called it [the Book of Mormon] a response to pressing cultural and environmental issues of Smith's times, or sometimes autobiographical.[184] Critics hypothesize that Smith drew from scraps of information available to him, calling the work fiction." Perhaps the material can be re-arranged so this is more clear? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think shuffling things around might make that more clear. Perhaps move the "Critics hypothesize that Smith drew from scraps of information available to him, calling the work fiction." line to the end of the paragraph following its current position. It feels out of place where it is right now, anyway. In doing so, it may benefit from some more explicit attribution; I'd ideally like to see it become "Critics, such as Foo and Bar,...". I think two examples there is about the right weighting and shouldn't be too hard to scrape up from reliable material. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling the Council of Fifty a shadow government would be entirely appropriate. Calling it a shadow world government seems unnecessarily grandiose, seeing that it only functionally controlled tiny Nauvoo, Illinois.
Sentence reworded. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's still a little awkward for a reader not familiar with the background here. The jump between a secret society organization in a fairly small town and "a first step toward creating a global" anything is unclear from the article text, and sounds hyperbolic. It's not, of course, and once again, the context is buried in the reference text. There's obviously no need to duplicate the Council of Fifty article here, but as Smith was president of the thing, I don't think there would be a problem with undue weight if there was another sentence or so of explanation here. The fact that the Council actually appointed foreign ambassadors seems relevant to the "global" description, for example. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence in "Theology of family" that begins "To fully enter the Covenant,..." is confusing. How many steps are there in this process? Specifically, is the sealing a separate step from the first annointing? The phrasing suggests that the Holy Spirit of Promise sealing is the same as the second annointing, so I assume so, but combining appositive phrases with a comma-separated list is a recipe for confusion.
Sentence reworded. The Holy Spirit of Promise sealing is the same, so I clarified that. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something here still makes no sense to me, and I think it's where the quotes are placed in the parenthetical. My reading of this is that there are three steps -- if that's not the case, more is wrong -- but the way the parenthetical is worded, an entity called the "Holy Spirit of Promise" (which has no gloss) also refers to it as sealing. I suspect that the idea behind the alternative description for this process is that the "Holy Spirit of Promise" is the actor, doing the sealing. Moving the opening quote mark before "sealing" probably solves this problem and allows you to cut the explanatory text from the reference (which is itself a laudable goal; there's almost a whole extra article of text down there!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead told us that "detractors view him as a cunning fraud." But I don't see much coverage of that at all. We hear about people who faulted his banking practices, people who found his actions treasonous, people who objected to polygamy, but there's very little mention of the idea that he was simply a confidence artist, save perhaps parts of two paragraphs in "Impact". Especially combined with the way that religious elements are blended into the historical narrative, this cements my concerns about the article's overall neutrality.
This has been worked on considerably, to the point that I believe it is fixed. However, you may evaluate it differently than I do. Please discuss. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, but I wouldn't mind seeing some other editors' opinions here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I've been thinking about quite a bit. The "cunning fraud" sentence in the Lead is actually a very recent addition (shortly before this review started) and I've had mixed feelings about it. Part of this is because I think it's an overstatement: it's stronger language than I've seen used in any of the sources, and it doesn't really do the man justice. Sure, it's easy, and it could be said of any religious figure who claims visions/revelations/authority/contact with the divine or supernatural (Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Bahaullah, Buddah). Frauds and con artists are born every day, but they don't leave lasting religions behind them. You could call Smith deluded, or say he lied about his visions, or fabricated the Book of Mormon, or deceived others, and that's fine. But there's more than that. Richard Bushman, arguably the best source on Smith, says that Smith himself believed his revelations as much as anybody else. Dan Vogel, one of the leading non-Mormon (well, ex-Mormon) biographers, says that Smith lied about his visions and revelations in an effort to get people to repent (he called Smith a "pious deceiver"). For Fawn Brodie (another very prominent biographer) it was a young poor boy trying to scrape together a living (by selling Books of Mormon) who got so entangled in the resulting religion that he couldn't back out. All of these are, well, more than just "cunning fraud". ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree on that point. Religious-themed articles are always a bear to approach from the NPOV perspective. I'm not married to the "cunning fraud" phrase so much as broadening some of the viewpoints depicted. I'm not sure that I can point to anywhere in the article where those above opinions by Vogel and Brodie are meaningfully discussed, for example. I mean, yes, Vogel's clearly quoted in that busy little paragraph in Impact, but there's due weight to consider here. Frankly, in general, I think the article's still a little light on non-Mormon and especially anti-Mormon viewpoints, including period anti-Mormon sentiment. Looking elsewhere in the article for the moment, the Nauvoo Expositor is described as "calling for reform within the church," citing Bushman, Brodie, and Quinn. But, of course, the Expositor did raise "explosive allegations", including the claim that Smith was using the cover of religion to attract innocent women to Nauvoo to build a harem! (See: Oaks, Dallin H.; Hill, Marvin S. (1979), Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, ISBN 978-0252007620. p. 14, or plenty of other sources.) Is that functionally anti-Mormon propaganda? Probably. Does that mean it's unimportant in the historical context? No. Do we see it given due representation in the article? I don't think so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinking of publishers is done very inconsistently. Likewise, the Howe source links the publication location, and I believe is unique in doing so.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by this. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two objections here, both regarding the References section. First, there doesn't seem to be a pattern to when you wikilink the publisher. Compare Bergara (Signature Books is not linked) with Bloom (Simon & Schuster is). There's no right answer here as long as you're consistent, but you're not. The second problem is that, on the Howe reference, you link the publisher's location, which I don't think you do anywhere else. I suppose this is also editorial discretion, but these aren't generally linked, and unlinking the location in the Howe reference is probably the easiest option. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are other location problems, too. The University of Illinois Press in the Newell reference lacks a location. And you are inconsistent in whether Salt Lake City gets its state specified (compare Bergera and Smith 2008). With how much is here, I've likely missed some. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this will be quick to cleanup, but I'm nevertheless going to have to oppose primarily on prose and neutrality grounds, at least for the moment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not strike my (or other editors' comments). It is my prerogative to determine whether my objections have been satisfied. Also, as I read through this another time, there are pervasive formatting issues in the Notes. This list should not be considered comprehensive:

  • The placement of parentheses for short-form references is inconsistent. Compare Notes 117 and 118, among others. Likewise, whether parentheses are used to set of explanatory notes or not is seemingly random. Compare Notes 193 and 195.
  • Unmatched parentheses are frequent. See Note 46, 157, and others; I'm not going to take the time to compile a list. They all need to be checked.
  • There are sources that are cited in the Notes but not the References. They're only used once, and so that's not normally a problem (many articles do this), but with the volumes of explanatory text in these notes, it's very easy to overlook them, so it may be worth considering having everything cited added to the reference section and short-form referencing only throughout the Notes. See Note 1 and 56; in either case, these need to be audited for formatting. Note 312 is especially broken.
  • There's a pipe character in Note 154 that surely doesn't belong.

Finally, while it would clearly be a Herculian task, spot-checking of references is probably required before this can be considered for promotion. In looking at whether the reference in Note 311 was properly cited and/or reliable, I discovered a different problem: it makes a claim not directly supported by the source. The Note claims that Smith's 1842 son was stillborn, but the source merely states he died before receiving a name; these are not necessarily the same thing. I do not have the time to determine if similar issues exist with any other sources. I continue to oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PumpkinSky
  • Ditto on the massive refs. I will let others worry about if it's ok or not. My concern there is that many of the harv/sfn refs are broken. Use this script "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');" to catch them. I have it in my monobook.js. PumpkinSky talk 21:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @PumpkinSky:, for the cool script. I fixed about a third of the broken ones today, and I'll continue work on that as I have time tomorrow and the next day. I'm also working on the overcitation problem. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded the script and have finished off what Adjwilley hadn't made it to yet. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Joseph_Smith_Jr_Signature.svg: source link is dead
  • File:The_Hill_Cumorah_by_C.C.A._Christensen.jpeg: source link is dead
  • File:Assassination_of_Joseph_Smith.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Mormon-book.jpg: licensing should probably be PD-text
  • File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg : who was the commissioner and the artist?

Comments, leaning oppose.

  • Not all images have alt text.

*Use of the contraction "didn't" outside of quotation

*Use of the contraction "wasn't" outside of quotation

*FN 168 is a dead link

*Ref "Quest for Refuge" is a dead link

  • Ref "Lion and the Lady" is a dead link (redirected to home page)
  • NPOV issues, per Squeamish Ossifrage
  • Unanswered issues in numerous locations, such as where did Smith obtain a pistol when he was jailed in Navoo? There is no mention of the individuals shot by Smith.
  • Ditto on issues in Missouri. The comments about the "Extermination" order are separated from Rigdon's prior speech on extermination, nor is there much coverage of the statements by Smith about taking the land from its non-Mormon owners.

There's more, but that will do to start. GregJackP Boomer! 06:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm still in the process of reviewing this article, but I wanted to start by asking about your research process. I've noticed that there are lots of references to one or two biographies. There are obviously many biographies of Smith. Why did you choose to use these? Wadewitz (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A huge number of the references are to Richard Bushman's 2005 book, primarily because it is the best biography out there, period. In second place would be Fawn Brodie's book, from back in 1971-ish. Hers, from what I've read, was the first "good" biography of Joseph Smith, in the sense that it wasn't a hagiography. There are a couple of others I know of: Dan Vogel wrote a pretty good one (I'd say it's in third place, perhaps competing with Brodie for second) but it only covers Smith's life up until about 1831 if I remember correctly. Remini also wrote a short one that has come in handy from time to time. There are other books about the beginning of Mormonism too, not specifically about Smith, that are useful, but I personally haven't used them as much. For me, I basically use Bushman by default because it's easy and I have it both in print and on Google Books. (I own the others too, but only in print.) In the past I've tried to weight things roughly by how much time the authors spend talking about stuff in the books. I'm sure there are lots of other biographies but I haven't researched or read any of them because I wanted to try and use the best available - ones that were respected in the academic community - and stay away from apologetic/polemic books. Hope this answers your question, though I can't speak for the other editors of the article who have written much more of it than I. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Joseph_Smith/archive1&oldid=1216956207"