Talk:1838 Mormon War/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Gottagitgud (talk · contribs) 13:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Penultimate supper (talk · contribs) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review this! It seems like a nice article on my first pass. While I'm not a member myself, I have an ongoing interest in Mormon history which springs from having lived in communities with many LDS members for many years, so I'm always interested in diving a bit deeper and supporting good content on the topic for the encyclopedia. I will try and get some initial comments by the end of the day, and complete a source review and provide more detailed comments over the weekend. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gottagitgud, I'm still compiling the detailed review of all the GA criteria, but I have completed some initial notes and a review of +10% of the sources, and have added those notes below. I'll provide further comments as I go. As of right now, I have mostly good impressions of the article, and I think it's either close to or already fulfills most of the criteria, but I think the citations will need a bit of work; I'll provide more specific thoughts in the detailed review sections. Thanks for the work you've put in thoughtfully improving an article that so many people had already contributed to over the years, its nice to see that type of collaboration and quality improvement work still taking place on articles that have a long history, honoring the editors who've contributed before us. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)}

Hello, I've edited in my full review. Please accept my apologies that this took me longer than expected.

Overall this is a wonderful article, and I think it does a good job explaining a very confusing war that involves a lot of back-and-forth, and a lot of unclear motives. I think the background section is particularly well-written. As of now, substantial work is going to be required to bring the sourcing up to the standards of a Good Article, because many claims made are not easy to verify in reliable sources. That's the nature of an article built gradually and by many hands though, and I think some dedicated work with recent scholarly sources can get the article where it needs to be, although it'll be important to remember that that may require some content loss if reliable sources don't cover everything that's currently included, and that's OK.

I'm placing this on hold right now until December 9th. @Gottagitgud: if you feel like you can bring the article up to standard by then, awesome, if you'd like to extend the time a bit before reviewing changes, just let me know. I see you've already started integrating some of the fixes I've recommended, which is great. Thank you for your hard work on this article; it really shows. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gottagitgud (talk · contribs); would you like me to wait a few days longer on this? I see you've been working in-depth on the article in sandbox, so I feel like it's likely it'll be up to GA standards soon and am happy to extend the hold a bit longer. Also, if there are any issues I raised or suggestions I made that you don't agree with, don't feel like they 100% have to be made, I'm just one reviewer and unless somethings a major violation of the criteria I'm open to reasonable editors having different thoughts about what leads to the strongest article, just note it so we can discuss if needed. Cheers! — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gottagitgud (talk · contribs); I'm failing this GA review now, as substantial work needs to be done and I haven't heard back in quite a while. I think it can be improved to GA level, and I think the work you've been doing in your sandbox is likely to get it there, so I hope you renominate it when your schedule allows. Be well — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Overview

• The article has been around since 2004, and has seen contributions from 160 editors over twenty years.
• The nominator has contributed 15% to the article, contributing over the past year.
• The article has 5800 words of readable prose, with a total size of 348 kb which seems appropriate for the topic considering the number and depth of reliable sources available.
• The lead is well-written and informative, but there may be some room for improvement in terms of length (it's about 10% of the article), detail (it provides a pretty detailed timeline of events that may not be all needed in the lead) and establishing a bit more about the context of the war and why it is notable in terms of larger issues in either Mormon or Missouri history. I'll provide a few more detailed recommendations in another section.
• Claims are thoroughly cited throughout the article, but I do have some concerns about WP:RS issues and over-reliance on primary sources or sources that are too close to events chronologicaly where stronger, more recent, scholarly sources may exist.
• I haven't done a detailed image review yet, but the article is well illustrated on first glance.
• No glaring prose issues on a first read-through, it is readable and clearly written throughout. Will provide specific recommendations about prose in another section.

GA review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: This represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria.
Key: = Pass; = Fail; = Questions; = On hold; = Unassessed.

Well-written

I think the lead section is a bit longer than it needs to be, giving a blow-by-blow summary of the article and taking up about 10% of the total length of the article. It could be reduced to focus a bit less on the internal events and just the conditions that led to the war and the conclusion/impact. It'd also be good to give a bit more of a sense of the context of the war in the larger events of Mormon and Missouri history at the time and to mention the legacy or later treatment of the war. I think context and notability could be well established by adding one or two references to the first few sentences of the Jackson County section and the content of the Aftermath section in the first paragraph of the lead and then shortening the following paragraphs to provide fewer details.

Overall, I found the article to be well-written and easy to understand. There are some specific paragraphs that become a bit knotty and hard to follow and some areas where details should be clarified; prose should be adjusted to increase readability' or unfamiliar people, places, or institutions should be defined.

The article adheres well to all the other MoS sections needed for GA.

I've listed a few specific issues with prose and/or breadth in the Content notes section below.

Verifiable with no original research

In the citation spot-check I reviewed 18 out of 121 citations and found 11 issues (not all of which impact the GA criteria), so I do have concerns about the article overall meeting the verifiability criterion. See the detailed citation spot-check section below for specific recommendations. At the least, citations that use the same sources as those where I found issues should be reviewed to make sure they do not share the same issues.

There are some sources named in the citation spot-check where the reference is relatively vague, and it would be difficult to find the source without the aid of the convenience link; these should be expanded to make it as easy as possible to locate the correct source.

There is one issue of WP:CLOP listed in the citation spot-check below that should be addressed.

There is a lot of good sourcing here, and claims that could reasonably be challenged are largely well supported. There are a few primary sources that I think should be used a bit less or excised entirely, and I believe most could be replaced by more recent, secondary sources. There's also a lot of thoughtful and appropriate use of primary sources, but to prevent the appearance of WP:OR and better support verifiability, I suggest subdividing the references list into lists of separate primary and secondary sources, but that's in no way required for GA.

Some of these issues came up in the citation spot-check below, but additional sources that I have concerns about regarding WP:RS or WP:OR include:

• Corrill, John (1839), A Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Commonly Called Mormons), St. Louis, Missouri.
  • Where this is used for illustrative quotations, it's probably fine, but it's probably not good to use to support direct historical claims, as it's primary and written by an involved party without any specific claim to be reliable.
• Jenkins, James H., Casus Belli: Ten Factors That Contributed to the Outbreak of the 1838 'Mormon War' in Missouri, Independence, Missouri: CreateSpace, 2014.
  • This one doesn't seem to actually be cited, but AFAICT, it's a self-published book by someone who doesn't have established expertise in the field. A lot of these amateur history books are really great, but generally not appropriate for WP. I'd recommend removing it.
• Johnson, Clark V. (1992). Mormon Redress Petitions: Documents of the 1833–1838 Missouri Conflict. Religious Studies Center, BYU. ISBN 0884948501. OCLC 1005472124.
  • This is used pretty extensively, and it's a situation of reprinted primary documents from the event, letters, affidavits, etc., being used to support specific claims. I think that's a WP:OR situation that should be addressed everywhere this is used for anything beyond a quotation.
• "LDS Church History: LDS History, October 14, 1838".
  • This one only shows up in the notes list [62], not the references list. Blogs on blogspot are considered generally unreliable, and I don't see anything to suggest this one is one of the rare exceptions. See more details here.
• "LDSLiving - Porter Rockwell: 7 Unbelievable Facts and Stories You Didn't Know". ldsliving.com. Archived from the original on February 25, 2016.
  • This one only shows up in the notes list [121], not the references list. I don't think LDSLiving.com is a reliable source on matters of history.
• Lee, John D. (1877). Bishop, William M. (ed.). Mormonism Unveiled: The Life and Confessions of John D. Lee and the Life of Brigham Young. W.S. Bryan. OCLC 1127295640.
  • This is only used once, but it's not a reliable source and should be replaced.
• Peck, Reed (1839), The Reed Peck Manuscript, retrieved November 13, 2016.
  • This is technically being quoted, but in small pieces that are being used to construct claims that I don't think can appropriately be supported by such an old primary source from the time of events.
• Smith, Joseph; Rigdon, Sidney; Smith, Hyrum (1840), An appeal to the American people : being an account of the persecutions of the Church of Latter Day Saints, and of the barbarities inflicted on them by the inhabitants of the state of Missouri, Cincinnati, Oh: Shepard and Stearns, archived from the original on October 21, 2013, retrieved April 14, 2011.
  • This is something that could support quotations, but it's being used to support whole claims. I think it should be removed or replaced as a non-reliable source, and it seems to be largely used to support claims that already have another citation attached.
• "New Page 2". www.tungate.com. Retrieved July 26, 2024.
  • This one only shows up in the notes list [64], not the references list. This is a primary source that can't really be used to support any claim other than its own existence, and it's hosted on a personal site of dubious reliability IMO.

Broad in its coverage

The article does a great job covering all aspects of the war and has a particularly strong section describing the background and events leading up to the outbreak of violence. There are a number of Mormon terms used without explanation; they are usually wikilinked, but could use a brief explanation to make the article more clear. Additionally, some characters and locations are referenced without being properly introduced/contextualized. This makes parts of the article hard to follow, particularly with regard to issues of geography and properly associating individuals with a specific side of the conflict. I've listed a few specific issues with prose and/or breadth in the Content notes section below.

Neutral

The article does a very good job of remaining neutral. Complex issues are largely presented clearly, and where quotations are used to provide more detail, they represent a diversity of perspectives. A diversity of sources are drawn upon, and disagreements or differences of interpretation between sources are presented clearly in the article.

Stable

No concerns here.

Illustrated

The article has a good number of illustrations that do a good job enriching the written content. All the images are relevant to the content and have good captions. Adding alt text would be a nice enrichment to the article, not a GA requirement though. I just had two notes:

• • File:Destruction of the printing press, Jackson County 1833.jpg - Issue
    • Needs a Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags#United_States_of_America
  • File:Daniel Dunklin.jpg - Suggestion
    • Seems a little odd to include Daniel Dunklin's portrait here when he isn't mentioned in the article directly and Lilburn Boggs occupies such a large role in the article. Not a GA problem, just a suggestion that maybe it should be supplanted or supplemented with a portrait of Boggs? Seems there's a good one available on commons.

Citation spot-check

I reviewed 10% of the citations, selected randomly from this revision. Because so many of them ended up being from LeSueur 1990, I added an additional five random citations to ensure my check reflected the diversity of sources included in the article. Somehow, none of the 18 citations I randomly chose came from Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, the one source I actually own a copy of 🤷🏻‍♂️. Please take some time to review them and either take action or share some thoughts about why the article may be stronger left as is. For citations where I found an issue, it'd probably be good to check whether the same issue applies to other uses of the same source.

• • 3a - Hartley 2001, p. 6 - Verified
    • The convenience link provided for this reference is behind some sort of odd gatekeeping captcha alternative, and I couldn't access it, but I was able to find it here.
  • 24 - Quinn 1994, p. 94 - Verified
  • 25 - Baugh 2000, pp. 36–40 - Issue
    • I'm having trouble finding the 2000 version of this source, it doesn't seem to be available online or via any of the public or academic libraries in my state. The 1996 dissertation version doesn't support the claims in the preceding paragraph on pages 36-40 (although part of the content on those pages is about the same aspect of the events. Additionally, this is both a dissertation and published by BYU Studies, which has a stated aim of publishing "scholarship that is aligned with the purposes of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the mission of his Church", so I don't know if it's the best source. I'm not saying it's not a reliable source, but since reference 22 and 24 already seem to support all the claims in the paragraph, it's got some marks against it, and it seems to be hard to get ahold of even as a reference professional with broad access, it may be worth removing. Alternately, it seems the author has published more on the topic since, further into their academic career (Baugh, A. L. (2019). “We Have a Company of Danites in These Times”: The Danites, Joseph Smith, and the 1838 Missouri-Mormon Conflict. Journal of Mormon History, 45(3), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.5406/jmormhist.45.3.0001, available here via Wikipedia Library) which may yield some stronger and more helpful cites.
  • 26 - Roberts 1965, Vol. 1, p. 438 - Issue
    • The text on p. 438 seems to be about the “Salt Sermon” addressed in the previous paragraph, while the information about Rigdon’s “Declaration of Independence” is on 440, at least in the 1965 edition I was able to access. This should either be changed, or the citation should be expanded to clarify the use of a different edition, so page number line up. Also, publisher information should be added to the citation, especially as this is a source published by the LDS church.
  • 34 - LeSueur 1990, pp. 77–85 - Verified
  • 40 - LeSueur 1990, pp. 70–71 - Verified
  • 42 - LeSueur 1990, pp. 85–86 - Verified
    • This is verified, but the information comes from a footnote citing another source, which you could make a little more transparent by using an approach like those described on WP:SAYWHERE, which appeals to my academic sensibilities, but is certainly not a GA requirement, nor neccesarily expected with any sort of consistency on WP.
  • 43a - LeSueur 1990, pp. 101–110 - Issue
    • Citing such a wide page range seems like it makes things a bit hard for someone to find verification, and since this same range is reused multiple times to support separate things, it may be good to break these out into more specific citations. Usage to support the claims in this paragraph is verified, but all the claims in this use come from p. 101. Additionally it seems like this may be a bit too close of a paraphrase—it's a small and direct sentence, but still probably worth reworking:
      • Source: On 20 September about one hundred fifty armed men rode into DeWitt and ordered the Mormons to leave the county within ten days.
      • Article: On September 20, 1838, about one hundred fifty armed men rode into De Witt and demanded that the Mormons leave within ten days.
  • 49 - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1968. - Issue
    • This is a difficult source to track down, linking to a physical-only archival collection, which is inherently fine, but the citation also doesn't specify where in this collection this information could be found. It'd be best to either get more specific, so that a reader with access to that collection would be able to find and verify this information, or if that's not doable, to replace this citation with something more accessible that supports the same claims, which seems like it should be possible.
  • 52 - Office of the Secretary of State of Missouri 1841, pp. 43–46, 53–54 - Issue
    • I don't know if citing legal affidavits from the time of the events for a historical event passes WP:RS. Additionally, a span of five pages—including many discrete statements—are being used to support a small set of claims that already appear to have support from a more RS, secondary, source. Could this be removed and the sentences it supports be reworded to rely only on [48] Baugh 2000, pp. 85–87 or possibly the alternate Baugh source I included above?
  • 61 - Andrew Jensen (1889). The Historical Record, Volumes 5-8. p. 732. - Verified
  • 88 - Office of the Secretary of State of Missouri 1841, p. 73 - Issue
    • Same source as 52 above. Can this be removed, and the sentences reworked to rely on [87] LeSueur 1990, pp. 168–172 alone?
  • 89 - Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1920, p. 13:450-451. - Issue
    • I had trouble finding a version of this source I could access. There's a convenience link to an open ebook hosted on Google Play, which I'd recommend replacing with a link to the Hathi Trust's holdings, but I couldn't get farther than the index in either without my browser crashing due to the size of the files. The citation also seemed to be saying that I'd find this on pp. 450-451 of vol. 13? If that's right, the index of vol. 13 indicates that those pages contain a listing of local historians, rather than explanatory text about the claims made in this article. I don't know enough about the source to be sure if it counts as RS, but I'm a bit concerned about an internal history journal from the Community of Christ not being RS, but I wouldn't fail on those grounds based on my limited info and the direct factual nature of the claims being made. At minimum I think the citation needs to be changed to make it more clear where verification of the claims can be found.
  • 93 - LeSueur 1990, p. 174 - Issue
    • Just a tiny issue, p. 174 isn't explicit about the overnight holding, so I'd expand this to pp. 174-175.
  • 94 - Robinson, Ebenezer, Autobiographical Remarks by Ebenezer Robinson (1832–1843). Reprinted Archived June 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine by the Book of Abraham Project at boap.org - Small Issue
    • This is verified and an appropriate source for a quotation, but the first link on the citation is dead, and the citation is worded in a confusing way. Is this an excerpt from a book being mirrored online? If so, I think the citation should be reworked using {{cite book}} and the Internet Archive link can be retained as a convenience link. I wouldn't be able to find this source using the information currently in the citation if the second link were to die.
  • 98 - LeSueur 1990, p. 182 - Verified
  • 105 - Greene 1839, p. 27 - Issue
    • I don't think this is a reliable source; it's a seemingly self-published pamphlet from the time of the events written on behalf of the Mormons seeking to defend them, written by someone who presents himself as the "authorized messenger of the Mormons" and has no backing in history or journalism. I'd imagine there are more reliable, secondary sources that could verify the claims this source is used for.
  • 107 - Greene 1839, pp. 26–28, 34, 36 - Issue
    • Same issues as in [105] above.

Content notes

• Background
  • Jackson County, 1831-1833
    • Most Latter Day Saints were originally from New England, the Ohio Valley, and Great Britain and, unlike their southern neighbors, generally opposed slavery.
      • Should be cited, or the paragraph should be reorganized to clarify that an earlier citation already supports these claims.
    • The expelled Mormons sought refuge in the neighboring counties, especially in Clay County.
      • Should be cited, or the paragraph should be reorganized to clarify that an earlier citation already supports these claims.
  • Caldwell Compromise, 1836
    • The Mormons began establishing the town of Far West as their headquarters within Missouri.
      • Should be cited, or the paragraph should be reorganized to clarify that an earlier citation already supports these claims.
    • This arrangement allowed for a period of relative peace. According to an article in the Elders' Journal, a Latter Day Saint newspaper published in Far West: "the Saints here are at perfect peace with all the surrounding inhabitants, and persecution is not so much as once named among them...".
      • This needs a full citation that would allow a reader to identify the source of the quote.
  • Salt Sermon and Danites
    • Might be worth adding a note that the Danites are named after the biblical Tribe of Dan; it's clarified in the main article, but the name appears without explanation here, and that could make for a smoother read.
    • I like the timeline and think it is helpful to understanding the article, but its location here seems a bit random. I'm not sure where a better location for it, perhaps its own section?
• The Election Day Battle at Gallatin
  • The phrase vigilance committee shows up mid-way through the section and is obscure enough that I think it needs definition or a bit more context. Are these the same as the mobs blocking Mormons from voting mentioned in ¶1? If so, it could be used there to create a definition from context. If they're different, it should be clarified. They're mentioned again in the next section as vigilante committees, with the suggestion that these are organized institutions of some sort, not just mobs.
• Mormons expelled from De Witt
  • The citizens of De Witt sent non-Mormon Henry Root to appeal to Judge King and General Parks for assistance.
    • Who is General Parks, and why would he and/or Judge King be able to intervene?
• Daviess County expedition
  • The second paragraph is really hard to follow here. It needs to be clarified what locations are in what counties, what the different militia forces involved are, and which ones are able to go where. Each involved force or leader should be introduced clearly before their actions are described.
  • Either Adam-ondi-ahman or Diahman should be consistently used throughout; currently, both are used, so a reader can't understand the geography unless they know they both refer to the same place. It should probably be clarified in the first mention that this is a town in Daviess County.
• Battle of Crooked River and Mormon Extermination Order
  • The first paragraph would benefit from clarifying the geographic relationship of Ray County to Caldwell County, whether the citizens crossing the Missouri were Mormon or non-Mormon, and from whom they were seeking safety.
• Hawn's Mill Massacre
  • Thomas McBride surrendered his rifle to Jacob Rogers, who shot McBride with his own gun. When McBride held out a hand, Rogers cut it off with a corn knife, then may have further mangled his body while McBride was still alive.
    • Which of these men was on which side, and why is this incident being specifically described? Was it the inciting incident?
  • Other members of the mob opened fire, which sent the Latter-day Saints fleeing in all directions.
    • Should be cited, or the paragraph should be reorganized to clarify that an earlier citation already supports these claims.
• Siege of Far West and capture of Mormon leaders
  • This section starts by talking about General Lucas, and then General Clark is introduced. What is the relationship between these two, what forces did each control, and why the switch from Lucal leading things to Clark being emphasized in the end of this section and in Aftermath? The page on Clark suggests he was the executor of the Governor's executive order; if this is the case, that should probably be made clear earlier in the article, and Lucas should be introduced when he appears in this section.