Talk:James Strang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article James Strang has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Very well written article, easy to follow and comprehend.
2. Factually accurate?: Copious use of in-line citations, moreso than most GA candidates actually. References section is well formatted with good sources, external links looks like it provides reader with some interesting further reading on the topic.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article is indeed thorough, covering a large time period and giving details in each section.
4. Neutral point of view?: Article seems to be presented in a NPOV manner, both in its use of language and use of citations, as noted above.
5. Article stability? From a perusal of the article history and the respective edit summaries going back a few months, the article appears to be stable.
6. Images?: Only one image, which is public domain (needs to be updated on the Wikimedia Commons, but that's okay. Could use perhaps two more public domain or fair use rationale images, but no biggie here.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

All in all a comprehensive article, one can tell lots of work went into this, especially with referencing and citations. Good job! Next step I would suggest a Wikipedia:Peer review. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Good article reassessment

I don't think this article meets GA standards. For example, the lead is brief - Wikipedia:Lead section- and the article footnotes use 'ibid' - Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once - extensively. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I was the initial GA reviewer. I actually though the lead was nice, but I agree it could use some expansion. The ibid format in the footnotes did not make for a difficult read at all. I must say just a note: this was most certainly not a "quick pass" - I went through and read the entire article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Comment. User:Ecjmartin has been revising the article quite a bit and has both expanded the lead and removed the 'ibid's. My objections have been removed. Good job. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 13:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

GAR now closed (keep!), but please check the archived discussion in case there are still useful suggestions for minor improvements. Geometry guy 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'm going through and working on the references. I came across the following:

from Council Bluffs: Mormons Who Made it So Far, Then Left for Wisconsin and Michigan]". Strangite.org. Slide 15. The website reads "Preliminary Draft Version Not to Be Circulated, Cited or Quoted Without Written Permission of the Author"

I have hidden it for the time being. Perhaps another ref can be found to replace this one. Lara❤Love 05:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found one reference in the Times and Seasons regarding Strang's excommunication, together with Strang's own comments on having never been summoned for a trial, in the Gospel Herald (one of Strang's newspapers). I will rewrite the sentence, using these citations. If anyone finds any other references in the Times and Seasons or elsewhere, please feel free to insert them, with appropriate citation. Thanks! - Ecjmartin 04:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference question

Lara, thanks very much for helping with the references on this article. Question: I notice that all references to the Book of the Law of the Lord were corrected to read "Strang: 1856," but there is no first reference naming this book. I've been out of school for awhile, and I know that things on Wikipedia are different from what I was taught in English class there and in college (no "ibids," etc. on Wikipedia, for instance), but shouldn't we make the first reference to the Book of the Law a full reference, with Book title, etc.? Thanks again for your work! - Ecjmartin 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to put the information in the references section, thought I had, actually, but I guess I overlooked it. It's there now. As for how it's cited, in school, that's probably right, how you had it. But WP has it's own style for things, like closing quote placement, for example. For more information on this see Wp:cite#Short footnotes with alphabetized full citations. Let me know if you see any other errors and I'll fix them. Lara❤Love 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I see it! This is much different from how I learned it in school, but that's part of the overall wikipedia learning experience. I really appreciate all your hard work on this. I inserted a new footnote (moved the George Miller info from a citation to a footnote "b"), and created a "citations" header for that section. Thanks again for all your work! - Ecjmartin 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Thomas Bedford and Voree Plates photos

These two photos (Bedford and the Voree Plates) were deleted from the article due to copyright issues. I thought I had gotten permission from the proper person to use them, but it turns out that gentleman was not the original copyright owner. Hence, in accordance with his instructions and Wikipedia policy, I have removed both photos. - Ecjmartin 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn FAC