Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

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)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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

Started reviewing around midnight for an hour. Will return to this soon! Please make recommended changes while I am away. Thank you, Heart ^(talk) 07:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from reviewer

I touched up the commas and dashes. Heart ^(talk) 06:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also could you clarify this sentence for me?: In 1873, the massacre was a prominent feature of a history by T. B. H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints. I have read it multiple times and I am confused on what you are saying. Heart ^(talk) 06:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Noting that the lede has no citations, but might not be needed due to WP:LEDECITE. Heart ^(talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The group was relatively wealthy, and planned to restock its supplies in Salt Lake City, as did most wagon trains at the time. The party reached Salt Lake City with about 120 members seems like a substantial claim that might need a citation. Heart ^(talk) 06:30, 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]

Is there a reason for the "the" in the second paragraph in Interactions with Mormon settlers? They had traveled the 165 miles (266 km) south from Salt Lake City, does this portion signify any significance? Heart ^(talk) 06:58, 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]

- On second review, do you mean the whole of the Old Spanish Trail? Heart ^(talk) 06:58, 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]

...rumors spread about misdeeds, the third paragraph of Interactions with Mormon settlers: Whose misdeeds? The groups? Perhaps clarify this. Heart ^(talk) 06:58, 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]

Noting all photos with fair use rationale, one original photo, and some with unknown sources. Heart ^(talk) 06:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note on 1b that that the word "said" could be replaced in the paragraphs per WP:WTW. Heart ^(talk) 03:49, 13 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]

Assessing sources and continuing reading the article. So far, no outright deprecated or unreliable sources. Heart ^(talk) 03:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While reading, I notice some sentences that could be more concise without the words such as "battle-weary" or "probably." Heart ^(talk) 02:28, 27 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]

In citation two, do you have a reason for the semicolon? Heart ^(talk) 02:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of "Killings and aftermath of the massacre" seems a bit choppy. I suggest rewriting it and combining a few sentences. Heart ^(talk) 02:33, 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

Pinging the nominator. . Heart ^(talk) 07:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Please note that if you find my editing in conflict with the article, please ping me and we can hash it out, I mostly just fix the grammatical issues. Heart ^(talk) 02:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue this review on Thursday! Look forward to seeing progress! Heart ^(talk) 03:02, 27 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]

HeartGlow30797 - I've gone in and done some general clean-up, adjusted some refs & some info. Let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HeartGlow30797 - Did some further editing, still finding content that needs to be adjusted. Latest was to the number of those killed...was it 120? 140? Well, no one really knows. So cited that info etc. Shearonink (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry I'm busy, but I will get to this soon! Heart ^(talk) 04:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]