Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Joseph Smith/archive1

Resolved Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

• There are at least a couple instances in "Early years (1805–27)" where Joseph Smith is referred to as "Joseph" and probably shouldn't be; in contrast, this isn't a problem in "Death", where there are two individuals with the same last name being actively discussed.

This has also been dealt with.

• I still think there is considerably more overlinking than necessary. Conversely, Adam-ondi-Ahman is linked at its second appearance, but not the first.

This has been worked on considerably. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• From a prose standpoint, I think there are better ways to identify the roles of Alexander Doniphan and Brigham Young than parenthetical clauses.

Both have been reworded. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• In "Death", the prose reads "He was shot multiple times before falling out the window..." and the image caption reads "Smith's body was shot repeatedly after he fell from the window." (both emphases mine). Not that they might not both be true, of course...

They are both true, so I've clarified that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• There appears to be a space missing between citation 267 and the following sentence. Nitpicking at its finest, I know.

Fixed. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The introductory paragraphs of "Distinctive views and teachings" are entirely uncited, despite containing contentious claims, such as Smith being "one of the most innovative characters in religious thought"; the last sentence in this section lacks a period.

All of the material is easily cite-able, and citations actually exist in the article for everything in the paragraph (see here for instance). However, because the new paragraph was so redundant with other sections in the article I ended up removing it entirely. I hope that's ok. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• What was the thought behind the selection of "See Also" links? Chronology of Joseph Smith, Jr. is actually Chronology of Mormonism and seems a more broadly-targeted timeline than necessary here. Miracles of Joseph Smith is a terrible little article. There's a link to the article for the film Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration, but that actually raises another question: should there be any discussion of media depictions of Smith?

I've fixed all of these concerns. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Joseph Smith appears twice, once after the infobox and once at the bottom, above the collapsed navboxes.

Done. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• OCLC numbers would be nice for print sources that predate ISBN assignment. The 1842 Clark source, for example, is OCLC 144810176. For that matter, check to make sure that everything with an ISBN has that number included. The 1989 Hill book is ISBN 978-0941214704, and the 2000 printing of Widmer is ISBN 978-0786407767. There are probably other missing reference numbers, as I did not audit closely once I realized there were several absent.

All missing ISBN and OCLC numbers found and added. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Plural marriage is parenthetically defined as polygamy, and then three paragraphs later, polygamy is parenthetically defined as plural marriage.

Fixed. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• "After moving to Kirtland in January 1831, Smith mitigated the new converts' exuberant exhibition of spiritual gifts, bringing the Ohio congregation within his own religious authority." I am not successfully parsing this sentence at all.

Reworded. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Much less confusing now, but there's a lot of information buried in the citation. In part, this is a problem only because the spiritual gift article is a mess; perhaps some of the explanation can be brought out of the reference to gloss the term here? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully that clears things up a little. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• There's an image related to Smith's proselytizing to the Sac and Fox in 1841, but I don't see any mention of that event in the prose.

Image removed. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Was this event significant? I was actually expecting this to be resolved in the other direction, but I could clearly be wrong here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't significant since I can't find mention of it in Bushman's book (generally seen as best biography out there). I think it was just a one day visit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• In "Family and descendants", "When the twins died...", but there had been no prior mention of twins, so there's no referent for this statement.

Fixed. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Are Thaddeus and Louisa among the first three children who died? I think so, but the prose here could use some work, including the following sentence about the adoption. Personally, I'd restructure the sentences so that the death of the twins was connected to the earlier sentences, allowing the adoption to begin its own sentence. As it stands now, it almost sounds like the adoption happened at the same time as Thaddeus and Louisa died, which is probably not exactly the case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Oddly it is the case, as far as I can tell. Both sets of twins were born on the same day: the Smith twins were premature and died within hours, and the Murdock twins' mother died in childbirth, and the father gave them to the Smiths for adoption. I can rework the prose anyway. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)