Jump to content

Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lee Vilenski (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 30 August 2021 (GA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeMountain Meadows Massacre was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 30, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Those Harvard cite warnings...continued...

Ok. This is just an FYI on the reason why I am editorially hiding SO many cites right now... The Harvard refs are a mess. Either refs have been deleted and then editors don't remove them from the Bibliography or sources have been added in the past even though they haven't been accessed...I do not know. I am basically parking all these cites *for now* inside the article until I can make sure they are not needed. This event has been a long-haul to get statements verified from reliable sources and I do not want to delete anything until I am certain the article doesn't need that source for some fact. I will remove any of the "hidden" cites sometime in the near future, but not until after I source-check the entire Bibliography. The end. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FIXED all them bad bad BAAAD cites. Removed all of the completely unused&hidden cites, after I made sure they weren't just somehow orphaned in some edit that happened along the way...turned out that the majority had been added in one fell swoop back in 2008 and had apparently never been cited in the article. Done. Shearonink (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HeartGlow30797 (talk · contribs) 05:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Timeline

Notes from reviewer

The author devoted an entire chapter of the book to the Massacre, Chapter XLIII (43), pages 424-458. That seems prominent to me. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He also mentioned it on the book's title page, as seen here: https://books.google.com/books?id=XbcUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Shearonink (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just adjusted that sentence to hopefully be more clear. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused on the plurality of the first sentence. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a series of attacks, the singularity of "massacre" dictates it should be "was," but the following plurality of "series of attacks" suggests it should be "were". I have reread it a bunch of times, and I think "was" is the correct usage, but I recommend cleaning it up. Heart (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaning it up? The usage is not incorrect. The overall event itself is singular though it consists of various individual sub-events and such usage occurs in over 5000 other Wikipedia articles, mostly in their lead sentences. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The actual number is unknown, so I removed it. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In paragraph two of Interactions with Mormon settlers, you say The Baker–Fancher party were refused stocks. However, grammatically you established that the "Baker–Fancher party" was a singular noun as established in the previous section. I recommend changing it to "were" throughout the article (mainly only a problem in the first section). Heart (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted that were to the singular was. There is an otherwise consistent referral to the party as being a singular unit elsewhere in the article ("the Baker–Fancher party was from Arkansas", "The Baker–Fancher party defended itself", etc.) Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incorrect usage. It is not significant other than that was the distance the party had traveled, the distance from Salt Lake City to where Kanosh Utah now is. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Old Spanish Trail was over 700 miles long and connected New Mexico with Los Angeles. It was a hellacious trade route and very difficult. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quote at that ref makes it clear - "If you were to inquire of the people who lived hereabouts, and lived in the country at that time, you would find, ... that some of this Arkansas company ...boasted of having to helped to kill Hyrum and Joseph Smith and the Mormons in Missouri, and that they never meant to leave the Territory until similar scenes were enacted here." but I did adjust it to make it crystal-clear. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what this comment means re 1b... "the word 'said' could be replaced". If the statements are referring to quoted statements or witnesses statements of events, either in newspaper articles or in official US Gov/Army reports or in court hearings...the word 'said' is correct. If it is a matter of stylistic preference that some other word perhaps should be used instead of 'said' that preference would not seem to be part of the GA criteria. Keeping in mind WTW, these statements are not words that introduce bias like puffery or unsupported attributions or editorializing, they are all part of the historical record. The word 'said' is used 3 times in the main text, once in a caption, and 4 times in references & notes. That usage does not seem boringly repetitious in an article with prose size of 4693 words and references in text of 18 kB. I'm willing to discuss and change if need be but I am somewhat puzzled over this possible "1b" issue... Shearonink (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you meant, take a look at my latest edit here. Lee & others said Higbee gave the order, Higbee almost claims later that he was barely there...presented the information according to sources, etc. Shearonink (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is all well! It’s not a big deal or anything, just some fine touches. Heart (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but to me this seems beyond the reach of the Good article criteria. Word choices, phrase choices are just that, editors' choices and are within editorial discretion. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a typo. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In paragraph five of "Investigations and prosecutions," is there a reason why you say "along with two others" just to list them in parentheses afterwords? Could you not just list their names without the "along with two others?" Heart (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of different people have edited this article over the years, not sure I personally worded it that way but it's been adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second to last paragraph in "Investigations and prosecutions," do you think Supreme Court Justice needs to be capitalized. Also, do you think the dash is needed in the word "re-use?" Heart (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the person in question is a former justice...I adjusted the word order per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of people. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the dash is needed. "Re-use" is not incorrect. Both forms, either re-use or reuse, are acceptable but to my eyes, if there is no dash meaning would be unclear and seems like it could be pronounced "royce". Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for taking this on. FYI I will be taking the weekend off of WP but will return early nest week to catch up on your further comments in this review. Shearonink (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HeartGlow30797 - Looking forward to more Notes and working together to improve this article to GA status. Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HeartGlow30797 - I dealt with all the "page numbers needed"-maintenance templates so those are all fixed and they were removed. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HeartGlow30797 - I appreciate you doing this GA Review so much but wanted to make a separate comment here. I don't think this is an issue that is explicitly spelled-out in the GA Reviewer instructions though it is mentioned at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles in its About the process section with "Reviewers may not review articles that they have edited significantly." The grammatical corrections you've made have been fine (you caught some that I missed so thank you) but you also did multiple "Touch up" edits where you changed phrases or altered word order, etc... The edits you have made to the article so far are not yet a significant contribution but in my opinion the number and type are starting to somewhat edge into that territory. How much you edit an article while you are in the process of reviewing it is just something to keep in mind on this Review or on any other GA Reviews you do in the future. This is not all some kind of a deal-breaker but I just wanted you to know my thoughts as we continue to work through the process together. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I detailed this issue above, but thank you for reminding me, I do not intend to edit the article in any major ways. I sometimes get very annoyed by grammatical stuff. Things I am unsure about I leave up to the reviewer, I will try to refrain from changing words though! Thank you, looking forward to continuing this tomorrow! Heart (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Prose

Lede

Adjusted the lead but it is so hard to condense...take a look and tell me what you think. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted - should be clearer now. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The wagons were drawn up into a circle and a trench dug into the center for the women & children to seek cover in. This is mentioned "down thread" but have adjusted and I think it is easier to understand now. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...deleted. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General

Well, it's true but trying to find a specific cite that supports that atm is beyond my brain at the moment. I'll try to circle back within the next few days and get a cite. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted one of the links but I think it is important to mention how far up the chain of command George A Smith was. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're right, adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. That was a loooooooong negotiation between myself and the person who took the image. I think it's the only photo WP has of the area as it appears now., I think it's important to give readers a sense of what this place looks like, not just linotypes from 19th century newspapers and so on. I seem to remember the photog originally posted it with an unassociated person present and this present image has the person removed? Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found the discussions in the talk page archives, see February 2019/Archive 20 and December 2018 Archive 20. I misremembered the discussion as being loooooong, it actually wasn't, but the point being that there was an editorial consensus established about the size and placement of the photo. The photo did used to be bigger and originally had extraneous modern people in it. Shearonink (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further investigations were cut short by the American Civil War in 1861,[34] but proceeded in 1871 when prosecutors obtained the affidavit of militia member Philip Klingensmith. Klingensmith had been a bishop and blacksmith from Cedar City; by the 1870s, however, he had left the church and moved to Nevada.[35]
  • Lee was arrested on November 7, 1874.[36] Dame, Philip Klingensmith, Ellott Willden, and George Adair, Jr. were indicted and arrested while warrants were obtained to pursue the arrests of four others (Haight, Higbee, William C. Stewart, and Samuel Jukes) who had gone into hiding. Klingensmith escaped prosecution by agreeing to testify.[37]
  • Brigham Young removed some participants including Haight and Lee from the LDS Church in 1870. The U.S. posted bounties of $500 ($10233[38] in present-day funds) each for the capture of Haight, Higbee, and Stewart, while prosecutors chose not to pursue their cases against Dame, Willden and Adair.

- I think we could probably merge some of these paragraphs, they are quite short. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The U.S. posted bounties of $500 ($10233[38] in present-day funds) each for the capture of Haight, Higbee, and Stewart, while prosecutors chose not to pursue their cases against Dame, Willden and Adair. - uncited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cited and corrected. It was actually $5,000. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to circle back to this...I mean, Mark Twain wrote about it in one of his books and Lee's trial got a lot of "press" in the contemporary media (newspapers) but getting this cited...will get back to it. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historians have ascribed the massacre to a number of factors, including strident Mormon teachings in the years prior to the massacre, war hysteria, and alleged involvement of Brigham Young. - feels out of place as a single sentence, and is uncited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an artifact resulting from the way the article was originally set-up. The entire next three sections cite the statement and I haven't been able to figure out how to make it more clear. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal but the help page for bundling? Yikes, kind of obtuse...I'm working on it, want to keep them all, hate to lose any of the info these cites provide, especially since I don't have access to some of the specialized sources some past editors have had. Will update here when I get the coding & structure solved. Please let me work on it myself, I'll ask for help if I get completely stumped. I've done nesting/bundling before but not lately... Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_Massacre&oldid=1041434742"