Talk:Joseph Smith/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This artcle is long and detailed and will require a substantial amount of time. Editors please be patient. If it is determined that a hold is appropriate, it will begin once this reviewer has completed work.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
  1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: *NOTE = The article is to broad and speaks of the church too much. In just the few references I have checked I see a gold mine of information about the man himself but even what is being used has been written with OR and bias.
    B. Focused:
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  2. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes:

Images must comply with Manual of Style guidlines Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy: Each image has a corresponding description page. On that page, one should document the source, author and copyright status of the image, using one of the pre-defined image copyright tags. It is important to add both descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) and technical (equipment, software, etc.) information at the time of creating the page, which will be useful and highly informative to later editors and readers.

Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.

  1. Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.
  2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves.
Description: The subject of the image
Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from
Date: Date the image was created. The more exact, the better
Location: Where the image was created. The more exact the better
Author: The image creator, especially if different from the copyright holder
Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Wikipedia with the selected image copyright tag
Other versions of this file: Directs users to derivatives of the image if they exist on Wikipedia

While many of the images are Public domain, their use on wikipedia in a GA article must have the proper information for consideration.


The following images have issues that need to be addressed to meet GA criteria:

  • Joseph Smith, Jr. portrait owned by Joseph Smith III.jpg (infobox image)= This image is missing both author and source information. While the artist is historicly unkown, the photographer of the 2 dimensional work is not. This may or may not be the same as the source. The source is where the image came from and a link to the website should be provided. Without this information it fails GA standards for complying with MoS.
  • Joseph_Smith_receiving_golden_plates.jpg = This image has the proper attrubution to the original artist (author), date and book title it was originaly published in, however it does not provide the source or author of the digitised file which is found here:http://newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com/2011/02/mitt-romney-jon-huntsman-mormon.html
  • Book of Mormon English Missionary Edition Soft Cover.jpg (infobox "Book of Mormon") = The image is missing the date information
  • Josephsmithtarandfeatherharpers.jpg = This image is missing everything but a souce link...which is odd since the source has the pertinent information.
  • KirtlandTemple_Ohio_USA.jpg = This image has only photographer information and nothing else. It also has been tagged to "check the image description page on the English Wikipedia (or, if it has been deleted, ask an English Wikipedia administrator". This must be rectified or not used on this article to Pass GA review.
  • NauvooLegion.jpg = This image is missing proper source information. The provided link is not correct. It does not contain author or date. "Apparently" is not acceptable source information.

*Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glass.jpg = This image is owned by the Public Broadcasting sytem and it still retains the rights to this image. As stated in the terms of service: The Information available on PBS ONLINE® may include intellectual property that is protected under the copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws of the United States and/or other countries ("Intellectual Property Laws"). Such Intellectual Property Laws generally prohibit the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of all text, photographic and graphic (art and electronic) images, music, sound samplings and other protected materials. The violation of applicable Intellectual Property Laws may give rise to civil and/or criminal penalties.

While some two dimensional images are faithful reproductions Wikimedia commons states: When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects, hence the rule of thumb that "2D is OK, 3D is not". The work presented in the image is NOT a mere 2 dimensional work. Stained glass requires "choice of framing, lighting, and point of view" as using a simple flash at anytime of day or night would NOT produce the image you see as well as the fact that the work is meant to be viewed from multiple angles in the same way as a sculpture, which by definition stained glass is.

In short, the license is incorrect and the original source STILL claims copyright. This image cannot be used for GA (or Wiki at all for that matter).

Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book[edit]

Green tickY. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Replies to the review[edit]

I'll take a look at addressing the image copyright issues. If anyone else gets to it before me, then all the better. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stained glass image[edit]

I emailed the Church History Museum, asking a few questions about the image. I might just take a trip to Salt Lake and photograph it myself. I've found various versions of this image online, but none under a permissible license:

I also found a similar work of art that we might consider photographing and uploading, if the original work is not copyrighted.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7156208@N02/412617797/in/photostream/

...comments? ~BFizz 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BFizz, I believe I have a handle on the infobox painting. I found the original source and author of the first image before upload. If all that was done was photoshop work to improve the image, than the information can be used.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC) It's not the same image. I will continue to research this one out. It would be a shame to lose it. Nice image.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image suggestions from reviewer[edit]

The infobox image is easily replaced but I do intend to see if I can find the nicer version even after the review is closed. It's just a really nice image and if we can't find the original source we will have to replace with the original upload as that is from the Church archives online while the other one is not. I have found two sites that use this image but they are both message boards that mat well have taken the image from wiki. The others can simply be deleted from the article if they cannot be fixed with no loss of quality to the article itself, but work is underway to correct them by another editor.

Stability[edit]

Work this out guys. Seriously. The article just came off protection and when I began the review it seemed to be holding stable. It has lost that stability which endangers the review. One criteria for "Quick Fail" is stablity. At this point I am NOT giving up with a quick fail but if this can't be smoothed out, GA standards that might be worked out may simply be lost within hours or days if it passes GA nomination.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that this article is a vandal magnet means it is unstable. The same could be said for such featured articles as Evolution, Harvey Milk, and Ronald Reagan--articles which always get opinionated edits, but which are stable because they are well-patrolled. There will always be opinionated casual editors who (often with good intentions) come in and try to impose a heartfelt but fringe view about Smith, but these are quickly reverted for violating WP:FRINGE or WP:NPOV. COGDEN 05:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. but that is simply incorrect. If the article is experiancing so many reverts that it is protected...it is unstable. The protection has been lifted and the constant reverts return. The review guidlines state "Edit warring, etc", so even though there are no real edit wars among the contributing editors, it is far from stable. I am talking about a single day. March 5th, were there was section blanking, vandalism, and simple disagreements on content and accuracy. The article is not stable. I am NOT quick failing over the issue for one reason...it wasn't so when I began. However, I am failing the stability portion of the review.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolution article is permanently semi-protected, and every time the protected status is experimentally removed, it gets hit with a lot of vandalism. Yet Evolution is not just a good article, it's a featured article. Nobody is clamoring to have the featured status of Evolution bumped down past "A" and "good" status to "B" status. Same with perpetually-protected FAs Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Harvey Milk, Atheism, and Yasser Arafat, and even Angelina Jolie. Also, it can't be the rule that the Joseph Smith, Jr. article, and all other articles about the founders of controversial religious movements, are forever barred from GA status no matter how good they get. COGDEN 07:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The lede has one major problem.....it has little to do with Smith himself and skips a lot of the article to speak almost exclusively about the church. This need to be a tight summary of the overall article. which leads me to the next major problem...

Replies to lede review[edit]

Can you give us specifics on what major portions of Smith's life the lede is skipping? Or portions of the lede that are excessive detail and can be removed? ...comments? ~BFizz 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You actualy can't see that the lede skips all the way up to adult life? OK...the lede needs to be a summary of the overall article. It skips all of "Early years (1805–1827)". I also think the article is over weighted with other information. There are several articles on Wikipedia about these subjects. This article is about the man himself. It should have much more information about his personal life, his wives, his children, his family etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lede needs to mention his family life as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right, and I have revised the lede a bit to reflect your suggestions. COGDEN 06:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article mixes subjects[edit]

A quick look at the article shows that there are really two subjects being discussed. The man and his church. While the church IS a part of the man's life, and a major part, the artcile needs focus. What is the article about. The man or his church or both. If both, then perhaps, simply renaming the article would be appropriate.

Replies regarding mixed subjects[edit]

He organized the church when he was 24, and died at 44, so nearly his entire adult life was deeply intertwined with the church. The article is about Smith, but it's virtually impossible to say anything about his adult life without talking about his church as well. The Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and History of the Latter Day Saint movement are the main articles about his church. If you have any suggestions of information that we can leave out of this article and treat exclusively in those articles, please do tell. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't finished the review and the above is only a suggestion. Leaving out information may be a simple matter of copy edit, or may simply be a matter of adding context to the areas being discussed. It isn't such a stumbling block for the overall article...but the lede suggest the focus is the church right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is obvious, the article has dropped his family all the way to the bottum. For an article about the man, this takes precedence over the rest on this article. This is a focus issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article does contain more information about his family than is in the last section. It has info about his parents' family, and about his plural wives (in the Nauvoo section). I agree his family is an important subject, but I'm not sure I agree it is the most important subject in the article, compared to such subjects as his founding of a religion, his arrest and near execution in Missouri, his death, and his teachings. COGDEN 07:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was "most" important. I said it takes precedence in a biography about the man. Again, this is a focus issue. It need not be placed at the top....but it does not belong at the bottum.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. Right now, Smith's family is broken into several different topics. There's his parents' family, the story of how he met Emma during his treasure hunting in the 1820s, maybe a couple of stories here and there about his children with Emma, an then later on there are the stories about his polygamous relationships. Are you saying that this information should be deleted from its present locations and moved to a new section at the beginning? Or kept in its original location but just duplicated in a summary form in a new section? Are we talking about completely new information that isn't in the present article? Thanks. COGDEN 06:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

The article lacks focus and is far too broad in scope. Seperating the man from the church is not impossible and simply using information from other wikipedia articles as the basis for this article, while appropriate, is not enough. There is a great deal of information available and can be referenced and cited. http://www.google.com/search?q=Joseph+Smith+Jr.+the+man&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 --Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, while he was alive, Joseph Smith was the church. Everything he did was an official church act. The scope of this article is roughly the same as the scope of every biography ever written about Smith. Really, to ignore his religious acts is to ignore the heart and pith of Joseph Smith. He would be an empty shell. I don't think it's the job of Wikipedia to re-write the book on Joseph Smith. So respectfully, unless I misunderstand you, I'll have to agree to disagree on this particular point, but keep up the good work on your review. COGDEN 07:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References, notes and sources[edit]

There are some reference, note, source and citation problems. This will take some time to go through. Bare with me please as I write up specifics. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I find in just the first 5 notes:

  • Note 1 claims the church has nearly 14 million members worldwide and the first USA Today reference seems to support this claim alone. However the note: (LDS Church claims 13,508,509 members as of end of 2008); Is unsubstantiated. This needs to be referenced.
Updated and referenced. w7jkt talk 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following note seems to be somewhat promotional and has no context to either the USA today reference or the unsubstantiated claim in notes. Community of Christ (2009), General Denominational Information, http://www.cofchrist.org/news/GeneralInfo.asp#membership, retrieved December 17, 2009 (second largest Latter Day Saint movement denomination claiming approximately 250,000 members). This is only one denomination. This simply does not relate to either claims.

Substantiate the LDS figure and lose the Community of Christ note.

  • Note 2 does not substantiate the claim that the family was poor when Joseph was born. In fact it actually states that “..they soon knew ‘the embarrassment of poverty‘..“ (after paying $1800 in debt by selling the farm and using Lucy’s $1000 dowry) but that there circumstances had improved by his birth. It states “Joseph Taught school in Sharon in the winter and farmed in the summer and with him working two jobs, the family circumstances, as Lucy reported, “gradually improved.” She was feeling optimistic when another son, Joseph Smith Jr., arrived on December 23, 1805.” This is the reference and it is all found on a single page, 19. The note gives pages 9 through 30.

The claim must reflect the reference. It should say “The family knew poverty, but by the time of Joseph junior’s birth their circumstances had improved.” The reference needs to give the specific page which is 19.

I agree, and have removed the word poor. The Smith family fortunes fluctuated, and they would not always have been considered poor. COGDEN 22:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 3 = The claim: “Crippled by a bone infection at age eight, the younger Smith hobbled on crutches as a child". Is not substantiated by Note 3 source: Biographical sketches of Joseph Smith the prophet: and his progenitors for ...By Lucy Smith. Pages 62-65. It’s only discusses the painful treatment he endured but says nothing about either being crippled or using crutches as a child. Either expand the claim or lose the reference entirely.

The reference from Bushman is on page 21. We do not need the rest. JUST page 21. Either fix the reference OR expand the claim to reflect the information found in the other pages.

Done. In addition, I've changed the current text which is incorrect. Smith hobbled on crutches after his surgery at age 8 until at least age 11 or 12, not before his surgery. COGDEN 22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 4 = The claim “ In 1816–17, the family moved to the western New York village of Palmyra and eventually took a mortgage on a 100-acre (40 ha) farm in nearby Manchester town.” is incorrect. The note only specifies page 30 of Bushman’s book, but is in fact 30-31 and is not the towns the claim makes. The books says the township of Farmington where they settled in Manchester village, which would become a township in 1822. This should reflect the facts as they are presented and as the timeline and chronology show. Adding that “this is what we know today as…“ and then placing the modern township and wikilink would work.
  • Note 5 is misleading. There is nothing that states they were “Squatters”, but that they actually “raised” a log cabin on land nearby. To do such suggests not that they were squatters but simply allowed to do so by the land owner.

In reading the actual references against the prose I see clear OR and bias attempting to make the life sound worse than it really was.

Note 6 = I see no mention of the term "Second Great Awakening" in this reference. The use of the Peacock term "Hotbed" is unencyclopedic. The reference merely mentions "revivals" of such great regularity that the district became known as the "Burnt district". Yes, it is speaking of this period but did not do so outright. To use this as the reference to that statement is stretching. You would need the reference and source to say this in one way or another and it really doesnt.

References have a few problems as well:

In short[edit]

Notes have some big problems with bias and OR. They do not seem to be completely following the source and in some instances are showing they simply do not support claims at all. This is a serious problem for a Wikipedia article, let alone for GA. Formating is just not to standard with overlinking, dead links and unreferenced claims. Not every note has such problems but clearly need a good deal of attention by a disinterested editor to go through line by line and make much needed editing.

References on the other hand are not as bad but contain similar problems that must be corrected. I really think the overlinking is really bad. It confuses the reader and makes navigating the sources very difficult. If you have wikilinked the notes and the references as a means of guiding the reader to specifc articles it doesn't help with a list this long right next to external links to to e-books, many of which do not go to the specific page were the reference would be found. If the external link does not go directly to the reference, why bother? It's not a conveniance.

Non-collapsible tables[edit]

  • Below the references and external links appear two tables that do not collapse and simply consist of either information that is also cointained in the nav bars or belong in "See Also" the need to be removed. If the information is relevent to the subject place the information in the body of the article. (unsigned by reviewer)


I've deleted these tables from the main article and moved them here for discussion:

Leaders of the Church of Christ, later called
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Founding president Leader Claiming Succession
Position in the Church of Christ
Title & denomination
Years
Joseph Smith, Jr.
(1830–1844)
Brigham Young
was President of the Quorum of the Twelve
President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
1844–1877
Joseph Smith III
was Direct Descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.

President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints later called the Community of Christ
1860–1914

James Strang
was an Elder with aLetter of appointment
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
1844–1856
Sidney Rigdon
was senior surviving member of the First Presidency
Guardian of the Church of Christ later called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion or Rigdonites
1844–1847
Political offices
Preceded by Mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois
1842–1844 		Succeeded by

Personally, I don't think they add anything to the article. The succession information is better written as prose, and can be found in the "Succession Crisis" article. Also, there is no consistent series of boxes used by Nauvoo mayors, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. COGDEN 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

OK, "Hotbed" is repeated now in the lede. I don't remember seeing it there before. Its a Peacock term. I am also seeing a repeated usage of terms and descriptions that make the article less reliable to the source. For the most part the writing is not bad. But the lede now contains the same phrase found in the "Early years" section. I had mentioned this only in the reference and note section as it pertained to the misuse of the reference...but now it needs to be addressed on it's own.

Another problem with the prose that I'll mention here intead of the reference and notes review section is the over abundence of notes breaking up the sentences throughout the article. It makes it very difficult to read. It is particularly bad from the sections, "Life in Ohio (1831–38))" up to the section "Death".

Example:

Mob attacks began in July 1833,[116] but Smith advised the Mormons to patiently bear them[117] until a fourth attack, which would permit vengeance to be taken.[118] This just does not seem necessary.

Regarding WP:PEACOCK: I disagree. We aren't using "hotbed" to make it sound any "better" or "worse", we're just using it to describe the significant religious activity. We are allowed to use interesting words in order to achieve the WP ideal of brilliant prose.
Regarding mid-sentence citations, for the example given, I agree that [117] could wait until the end of the sentence, but the sentence consists of two separate thoughts, and I believe [116] should stay where it is, to make it clear which reference applies to which statement. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Smith/GA3&oldid=1136855714"