Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. edit

This article was promoted on 7 December 2005 (UTC) by Raul654

This article was split off recently from Joseph Smith, Jr., and has undergone peer review here. I have contributed the most to this particular article, but there are many editors of articles on the Latter Day Saint movement who would like to see an article about Smith in honor of his 200th birthday, which is approaching on December 23. The article is on a rather controversial subject, but it is highly cited (mostly to primary and secondary sources accessible on the internet), covers numerous points of view, and everything is verifiable. COGDEN 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why the strange "FOR TESTING ONLY" phrases with every reference? Harro5 05:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why you are getting this. There was a template problem on previous versions of the article, but this should have been fixed. Maybe your page cache needs to be updated. Is anybody else getting this? COGDEN 05:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have caches disabled, and I do not have any such problem. -- Creidieki 05:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems to have corrected itself. Anyway, I don't know enough about the subject to comment on content, but the other stuff in the article looks good. I'll be interested to see how this FAC goes. Harro5 09:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object -- This article does a very good job of establishing context for unfamiliar readers for the subject (second paragraph) and for the larger context of the subject (third paragraph). I've seen few articles do this well, and I commend you. The citations are uniformly excellent, and the article does a very good job of maintaining NPOV and of presenting disputed historical accounts. Overall, this is one of the tightest and most professional articles I've seen on Wikipedia, and I look forward to being able to give it my strong support.
The article was already very well proofread, and I was unable to improve much on this front. I know very little about Christianity, particularly the Latter Day Saints, and so I was unable to accurately judge the article's comprehensiveness or neutrality. This is the first biographical article I've reviewed at any length, and I'd be happy to discuss any of my structural suggestions if they seem offbase. I had many suggestions which I would like to see addressed, but they are all minor:
  • The Golden Plates are mentioned in the first paragraph without explanation; they're likely to be confusing to unfamiliar readers. I think that a few words or a phrase could give the necessary level of explanation (perhaps something like "containing revelations from God"; I'm not personally familiar with the subject.
  • In the childhood section, why was the Smith family warned out of town? Had they recently moved there, or was there another reason that they were viewed as "outsiders"? Did they commit any specific indiscretions, or was there simply too much competition for food? If the exact reasons are not historically recorded, this should be mentioned explicitly.
  • Is there an appropriate link for warning out of town somewhere on Wikipedia? It's fine if there isn't, but it seems like a good thing to link.
    • Good idea. I created a stub article on the subject. COGDEN 19:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's an appropriate internal link for the general religious atmosphere in the early 19th-Century United States, it would go well in the first paragraph of the "Religious and folk-religious background of Joseph's family" section.
  • If you don't already know what a theophany is, the "First Vision" section is a little bit hard to understand. There's an entire paragraph of historical background, during which I was wondering, "So was this an actual physical vision of God, or just a realization, or what?". I think that some description might want to go before the historical background.
    • I tried to address this. COGDEN 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, if you don't already know what the Second Great Awakening period was, the first sentence of "Joseph's early religious experiences" is a little bit confusing. The reader has to infer what the Awakening is from the second part of the sentence. I'd generally suggest a sentence of the form "Joseph was raised during the Second Great Awakening, a period when ....".
  • I think that Urim and Thummim should be explained in the article, at least briefly. They're mentioned several times, but you have to check that article to really understand what they are.
    • Hopefully I addressed this. COGDEN 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs of section 2 ("Early experiences...") are currently formatted as if they were an introduction (i.e., they don't lie beneath a heading). In content, however, they are simply the first two paragraphs of the history. This is actually true of section 1 as well. I think that actual introduction paragraphs should be written for these sections, giving an outline of the content. (I'm willing to discuss this, I don't have much specific experience with biographies).
    • I tried to address this. COGDEN 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I don't think that the current separation of the article into sections 1, 2, and 3 is very good. "Joseph Smith's First Vision" is part of the Childhood section, which makes *some* sense (since the visions happened while he was 15-18), but really it's pretty thematically unconnected with the earlier portions. Would you consider breaking the article into (1.1 and 1.2), (1.3 and 2.1), (2.2), (3)? Each of those new sections could have an intro paragraph, and you could probably split 2.2 into subsections (it's rather long at the moment).
    • I agree, and I tried to address this in a manner similar to that you suggested. Hopefully the article has a better structure now. COGDEN 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the "First Vision" section makes it sound like the action is happening in 1832, rather than in 1820/23. It's important to mention the publication, but the vision should take priority.
  • The endnote says that the article is continued in Joseph Smith, Jr. rather than at Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1827 to 1831). Is this intentional? I've often seen templates used to graphically represent these types of sequential articles.
    • I've fixed this. I also added the template. COGDEN 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and good luck! -- Creidieki 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created a template that might help address the last comment {{Joseph Smith, Jr.}} it could be added to all of the relavent articles to help navigation between them. I won't add it myself but if you think it's useful it is there. --Martyman-(talk) 23:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support -- One of the best articles I've seen on Wikipedia, and shows a nuanced understanding of how to cite biographical information. All of my objections were minor, and have been addressed. -- Creidieki 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a prime example of seperating informaiton out of a long, detailed article for readers who want additional informaiton. Comments above are good and should be addressed, but the article has my support. -Visorstuff 20:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As Visorstuff pointed out, this is a good model for splitting up long articles. Masterful work on the part of COGDEN. Quite good, quite good, yes. Cookiecaper 02:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - COGDEN did a great job on this article -and the final tweaks that have been suggested only go to show how well he incorporated many disparate views and the long term edits and debates that went on in Joseph Smith, Jr. before this article was created from a section of that article. Trödel|talk 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support enthusiastically - The perception of the general public about the LDS Movement and its founder is often spotty or incorrect. This would be a great opportunity to do some educatin'. Good job by COGDEN and other contributors.. Deadsalmon 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: a strong effort towards a NPOV article on a very controversial subject. Throughout the articles development, COGDEN and other editors sought and listened to opinions and ideas from others. The material is consistently referenced and provides a strong overview of the person and his time. WBardwin 00:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now that all of Creidieki's points have been addressed. --Martyman-(talk) 02:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent Article Abeo Paliurus 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as above. I helped work on the peer review. However, I would be interested in finding the {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} site. Where is it? Has it been deleted? Trevdna 17:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The old peer review site is here. COGDEN 00:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow! Tom Haws 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support, of course. However, there is one suggestion I would strongly urge on COGDEN, who has done a marvelous job both on this article and others: you should create a template so that all major articles on related to the LDS church may be easily found. Hydriotaphia 22:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. I'll think about what kind of template might work. COGDEN 00:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per (all of the) above. But as a non-Mormon (I'm personally an atheist (not that it matters), and likely one of the few non-Mormons voting on this FAC), I did initially find the heavy reliance on religious literature and autobiography in the inline Harvard citations as (IMHO) rather unsettling. Yet at second glance, it is perfectly acceptable. But given that the article gives plenty of disclaimers (usage of word "purported" in describing the plates), the article seems to present a perfectly dispassioned and encyclopedic tone. This, as Creidieki states (way above) indeed should serve as a model of accuracy, thoroughness, and verifiability. Cheers. ← SARAVASK — 20:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to add—as somebody who has given his support to the article—that I am emphatically not a member of the Church of LDS. I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, Saravask, but I would not be so quick to assume that most of the people who support this article are Mormons. Hydriotaphia 06:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article doesn't sufficiently explain why his early life is important and significant enough to warrant a separate article. Reading the article, I feel like I'm reading part of a larger article rather than a standalone article. In addition, some of the writing is extremely convoluted and confusing (for example the section 'Moving to Harmony, Pennsylvania'), and I think 50kb is far too long for an article on Smith's entire life, let alone just his early life. Worldtraveller 17:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I addressed this in the introduction, which now explains why this particular era of his life is significant. on the issue of size, 50 kb is not really that bad, especially considering that much of this bulk is from the extensive footnotes and bibliography. If you have some specific comments concerningn the Moving to Harmony section, I'd be glad to address them. COGDEN 01:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why his early life is important enough to need a separate article. You say in your nomination that it was 'recently split off' - why the split?
50kb is too long for almost any article, and even more so when this only deals with an arbitrarily selected portion of one person's life. The way the article ends makes it clear it's intended to be read as part of a series and not as a standalone article, so that in fact you have a 95Kb article arbitrarily split into three separate parts.
I picked out the Moving to Harmony section because the prose there is almost impenetrable, and it seems to me the second paragraph could be replaced by something such as 'Harris had known the Smith family for several years and believed in Jospeh Smith's claims to be a seer. After visiting Smith in person to hear about the plates, he agreed to sponsor their translation'. All the extra detail is extraneous. Much of the article suffers from this kind of writing, in my opinion. Worldtraveller 23:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Worldtraveller's objection is not actionable because it would require deletion of the article. He should remember that his stance of radical deletionism is a very lonely one. Everyking 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A request to trim an article to a reasonable size is, of course, perfectly actionable. I do hope you're voting based on the article contents - your comments don't refer to the article at all but only to me and my comments. Worldtraveller 00:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm voting based on the article itself. And if a substantial amount of content is removed (without being moved elsewhere), then I'll change my vote to oppose. Everyking 01:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Contrary to the above objection, I think does a pretty good job of complying with Wikipedia:Summary style, and that COgden is to be especially commended as having done so at pretty short notice, following my original concerns that the unsplit article was over-long (as I indeed felt it was at the time). The current arrangement splits up his biography as logically as is reasonably possible (obviously any person's life is a continuum, so one could always claim such are "arbitrary"), and this article is <6000 words, excluding the commendably extensive references and endnotes. Obviously this is more detail than every reader will require, but that's exactly what the parent article and summary style structure is for. Unless anything remaining is out-and-out non-notable, which it doesn't appear to me to be, I don't see much of argument for outright exclusion of anything here, and I don't think further splitting would be beneficial at this point. Alai 06:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particular reason this has not been moved on yet? The lone objection (in a veritable throng of support) is not something that anything can be done about (see top of the FAC page), and they have not stated anything specific that can be done. It's not as though this needs to be kept here forever so that the entire Wikipedia communtiy can register support.
  • Or maybe I'm just being impatient... Trevdna 03:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There certainly is something that can be done about my objection - I gave a specific example of how the writing can be made far more concise. And the question of why his early life is important enough to warrant its own article, distinct from an article on his whole life, has not been answered either by the article or here. I see more and more examples on FAC of people declaring objections inactionable rather than acting on them - if your interest is in improving the article, rather than simply getting the badge of FA applied to it, then please try and address objections, even if there is only one person objecting. This is not a vote, and it often happens that one person perceives faults that have been overlooked by others. Worldtraveller 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess the vote is a done deal now, but as one who is trying to improve the article, I'm still interested in your input. On the issue of why Smith's early life should have an entire article, I tried to address this in the introduction. Basically, Smith's entire life has been deeply scrutinized by dozens of biographers. His early life, particularly, is a crucial era because within it lies the foundation for much of the Latter Day Saint movement. Regarding the final section, I plan to take a look at it and see if I can improve it stylistically. COGDEN 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I just noticed it has been promoted anyway, although my objection was, I feel, still unresolved. In any case I will be happy to continue to offer my thoughts if you'd find them helpful. I still do have a problem with the article itself, existing separately from an article on his whole life. I can see that his early life is important, but is it not more useful to the reader to be able to judge that in the context of his whole life?
        • The thing is, often an article will say ´see main article, xxx', but that should only happen if xxx is a topic in its own right. In this case, it seems to me your xxxs are parts of a whole, rather than topics in their own right. I think this is an issue that has yet to be discussed fully - there is a small thread on the FAC talk page but nothing conclusive.
        • But putting that to the side for a moment and considering the article, I do think it's quite a lot too long and I think the prose can be tightened considerably, along the lines of what I suggested above. Conciseness, I strongly believe, is a great virtue, and most of the FAs I have written come in well below 32Kb (I think a couple are 10kb or thereabouts). The less words you can use to say what needs to be said, the better, and I think this article could say exactly what it says at the moment with far fewer words. Worldtraveller 02:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that Cogden has attempted to address your concern i.e. justifying the need for an article on early life. Do you have specific objections i.e. do you need more information regarding JS Theophany and it's impact on the Latter Day Saint movement or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members specifically. Trödel|talk 14:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.&oldid=1138459119"