Talk:Spencer W. Kimball/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in some respects very high quality; it's well written, clearly referenced, and covers many important aspects of Kimball's life. However, it seems to me that some work needs to be done before meeting the GA criteria in other areas. Here are the major issues I see:

The article almost entirely on accounts of Kimball's life written by his sons, rather than on independent secondary sources. A quick check of Highbeam and Google News archives suggest that many independent secondary sources on Kimball's life do exist (indeed, the article itself refers to Kimball's actions making headlines across America). I would suggest that this article be heavily revised to include perspectives outside of Kimball's immediate family specifically, and outside the LDS generally. This seems to me necessary to meet standards both for neutrality as well as reliable sourcing.
This obituary provides some idea of what this non-LDS perspective might look like.[1] It notes, for example, his strong stands on social issues like the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, pornography, and homosexuality--if these make it into a comparatively short obit, they're probably worth mentioning in our article. Time mentions the same.[2]
"The number of missionaries also greatly increased and a burst of temple building occurred. His book The Miracle of Forgiveness is one of the best-known church books within the LDS Church." -- This praise for his legacy needs a source.

In short, though I'm not listing it at this time, I think this article has a strong start toward the GA criteria, and I thank you for your hard work on it so far. I hope you'll find these comments helpful in revising, and renominate this one soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks for your comments. Your first and second ones are inherently highly problematic, though: no full biographies of Kimball exist save for the two written by his son Edward and grandson and another by Francis Gibbons published in 2009. Additionally, that Time obituary mentions his opposition to the ERA and abortion, the first of which was a major issue long before he became church president. Time's obituary is fundamentally different to a Wikipedia article: it is original research, while Wikipedia articles are not. I can add some of his involvement with other policy changes, but Kimball is not widely known for those and they play only minor roles in his biographies. I can add mentions, but they will probably be only a sentence or two. To your third comment, I heartily agree: that section was a remnant added by a previous editor, and I didn't feel like deleting it outright. I was hoping to add a proper "Legacy" section later on, perhaps in preparation for an FA submission. Your thoughts? White Whirlwind 咨 01:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WW, thanks again for your work on this one. As you'll see in many Wikipedia articles, using journalistic sources is not considered original research (defined in WP terms as " material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"); you can read the full policy on original research at WP:OR. Generally Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sources, such as major national publications, as a guide in writing articles; that's why I suggest including the information they include about his stands on social issues, for example, even if you personally disagree as to its importance.

Since reliable secondary sources exist, it's clearly problematic to rely solely on Kimball's children; ideally, the Wikipedia article should include a range of sources and perspectives, and not only those of Kimball's immediate family. Hope this helps clear up my concerns, and again I wish you the best in expanding and revising this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]