This review is transcluded from Talk:St. George Utah Temple/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Itsetsyoufree32 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take this one. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose adequately and concisely explains details about the temple. Grammar is correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section summarizes the article's points. Layout makes sense and is largely chronological. No WTW issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Article is cited to sources such as local news outlets and historical societies. Publications of the Church are used appropriately.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article does not have any coatracking or misrepresentation of sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 35.5%, but mostly proper nouns. No close paraphrasing detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All the sources I can find focus on details that are mentioned in the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article stays focused on the temple, with just some details that provide context.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article stays objective. It uses biased sources, such as official Church publications, but only for non-contentious statements.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are public domain or freely licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images depict the temple and its construction.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article looks good. Congratulations on your first GA, Itsetsyoufree32!

• I'm not familiar with most of the sources, especially the LDS-focused ones. Some of these sources are published by the church, so they are biased sources, but they are probably acceptable for most of the statements in the article. Most other sources look reliable, but some are questionable or low-quality. Please explain why the following sources are reliable: St George News, LDS Daily, Joseph Smith Foundation, LDS Living, Book of Mormon Evidence.
• Master's theses are usually not considered reliable, so unless you can show that Kirk M. Curtis is an influential expert, I'd say this source should be removed.
• The "History" section could be reorganized. The subsections "Cupola" and "The Founding Fathers" are both only one paragraph and have no reason to be separate subsections. I would suggest organizing the history more chronologically; perhaps organize it into four subsections titled "Planning", "Construction", "Opening and reconstruction", "Later history".
• I'll be doing some copyedits myself for grammar, conciseness, clarity, and MOS:LINK.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox needs a citation for the temple's number
• Infobox needs a citation for the height (or this fact could be added to the body)
• Convert DMY dates to MDY dates
• November 11, 1975, by Spencer W. Kimball should be verified in the body.
• Infobox says "Castellated Gothic", but body says "Castellated Neo-Gothic".
• reportedly used by Napoleon during his Russian campaign is not a necessary detail for the lead.
• was too short and ought to be taller Redundant
• Remove the details of notable historical figures, including George Washington and Christopher Columbus and including U.S. Founding Fathers and European leaders, which are too specific for the lead.
• temple ordinances for their ancestors Not verified in body
• The phrase the most recent is MOS:RELTIME. I think the mention of this renovation should be removed from the lead; it's not super significant.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think some statements in the first paragraph should be reordered. It flows better to first give background about St. George (St. George was founded..., The settlement period..., Young selected St. George...), then say that it was approved.
• The direct quote "mix of emotions" must be attributed or removed.
• were said to shout Were said by whom?
• When you say the third completed by the church, perhaps specify that the others are Kirtland and Nauvoo.
• since church members left Nauvoo → since the migration
• where the ordinances were written down for the first time in the history of the church first written down
• Delete the parenthetical (a people described in The Book of Mormon). If readers don't know who the Nephites are, they can click the link to the article.
• To address the issue swampy conditions
• I think the two paragraphs that mention the cannon could be merged into one paragraph.
• was reportedly used The word "reportedly" shouldn't be used unless we can specify who reported it.
• Your phrasing implies that "when the cannon was dropped and it bounced three times, then the foundation was solid enough" is a direct quote from Young, which it is not.
• white epoxy paint for a white appearance I think readers know that white paint will appear white. :P
• I think it's redundant to say made note of the pioneer's dedication to building the temple and then symbolized the Latter-day Saint dedication to temple work in the next sentence.
• Do we have to specify "hand-chopped"? I could be wrong, but I would assume that that's the main way of chopping wood in 1877.
• The statement remains the oldest temple still in active use by the church is MOS:RELTIME. I'm not sure what the best phrasing is, though. Normally, it would say something like It became the oldest temple in active use by the church after the closure of Temple X in Year Y. but that's not the case here since the previous temples were already closed.
• Notable temple presidents include... If possible, this should be replaced with a "List of temple presidents" section.
• The lead should be changed to reflect the fact that Young did not want to delay construction. (The lead says it was the builders' decision, not Young's.)
• Two years after his death, in 1883 → In 1883, two years after his death So people don't misread it as "his death in 1883".
• spanning two days and two nights
• Delete along with other eminent women such as
• 85 Native American chiefs had baptisms performed on their behalf Just to be clear, these are historical chiefs, not living ones, right?
• Over its history, the temple has experienced ten renovations → Between 1877 and 2019, the temple experienced ten renovations
• Renovations throughout the building and on the site included

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Contemporary temples alongside the St. George Utah temple
• You define the word "castellated" when describing the contemporary temples, but since you use the word earlier, it should be defined then.
• The temple spans a total of 143,969 square feet
• the cast oxen were transported by train and oxen drawn wagons from Salt Lake City to St. George
• updated to reflect the architecture of the historical pioneer era
• I feel like the statement about the three murals would fit better in the "History" section.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Admittance" section is very short. I would suggest merging this and "Design" into a new section called "Description".
• Like all temples of the church, the St. George Temple is not used for Sunday worship services. To church members, temples are regarded as sacred houses of the Lord and are and is only accessible to members with a current temple recommend.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing 20 randomly chosen citations. As of this revision: — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're talking about references, I will suggest that you make sure the same reference is not mentioned multiple times. This is not a requirement for the GA, but it would make things clearer. (Also: I have no idea what's going on with reference #1. It just says "reference", and it doesn't point anywhere in the article, and it links to a URL nowhere in the article's source code? It's a bare link, which violates the GA rules, but I can't tell you to fix it because I don't know what's happening.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Vigilantcosmicpenguin! Thank you for doing a GA review for the page.

  As for sources like LDS Daily, Joseph Smith Foundation, LDS Living-

  LDS Living is owned by Deseret Book, which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ. There’s a source guide on the Latter Day Saint Movement, which says that Deseret News (and Church News) is generally considered reliable, but there isn’t a consensus on using pages like LDS daily as far as I can tell. The Deseret Management Corporation (DMC), which is a holding company for business firms owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDS Living says it is an independent work on their website, but it is owned through multiple layers by the church, so I could see it going either way, but it may be better to not include it- so I can look for different sources if need be.

  LDS daily is not associated with the church, and seems to be a self published source that is not owned by a subsidiary of the Church. It does seem more like a blog from the surface. I’ll look into finding better sourcing for what was cited by it, and remove it.

  The Joseph Smith Foundation is owned by people who are members of the Church, but not outright owned by the Church itself. As far as I can tell they reference primary and secondary sources. There is no consensus for it on the WikiProject page, but I suppose for uncontroversial descriptions, it could be an appropriate source. The source I looked at for the page seems to cite its sources (specifically the source on the founding fathers)- One is from an author of a book who wrote commentary about the source and other primary sources weighing in on what it is saying. While I think the source is biased, It seems to match the spirit of Wikipedia if it is summarized in a neutral fashion, but if you feel otherwise we can re-evaluate.

  As for the sourcing for Book of Mormon Evidence- after further research, seems to be self published. We can remove the link to that. The source is used one time, and there is another source already there, so we can remove it. It’s very difficult to find sources about the Native American chiefs that had baptisms performed for them. And to answer your question, yes, it was after they had died. Baptisms for the dead (as performed by Latter-day Saints) is about someone standing in and receiving that ordinance on behalf of someone who has passed on. This article talks about it very simply, and the Wikipedia page covers it as well. I put on the page that it was for deceased chiefs (in parenthesis), although their being deceased is not explicitly mentioned in the article. It could constitute original research since it is not outright stated on the page, but for making it less confusing I could find a citation about general baptisms for the dead, and perhaps make it a separate sentence. I’d welcome some feedback on that end to clarify things.

  The St. George News page seems to be a local news reporter that is owned by the Canyon Media Corporation, which owns several other radio stations in the area, including KSGO, which was notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page. It is a local news source, and I’m unfamiliar with Wikipedia’s policy for how notable or usable local news outlets are. For uncontroversial descriptions, I think this would definitely work, as the company that owns it is notable enough.

  The copy edits you suggested on the history sections sounds intriguing- I’ll try and spend some time figuring out where each part could go under the new subheadings. Thanks for being willing to do some copyedits as well, I’m looking forward to working with you and helping this page become even better!

  I’ll go more into detail on what you pointed out as quickly as I can get to it. I’ve already done most of what you’ve marked on the lead, and I have been incorporating elements to fix other sections as well.

  I also don't know what's going on with that bare link- I can't even find where it is in the source code. Perhaps it's embedded in the table, I'll take a closer look.

  ~~~~ Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From your comments, I agree that St. George News is a generally reliable source about the area. As for LDS Living, I'm leaning toward saying it's unreliable; it's not an official church publication and it doesn't list an editorial staff. Joseph Smith Foundation, on the other hand, does list an editorial staff, so I will say it, so I'll say it's mildly reliable but biased. I would prefer other sources, but I think the Joseph Smith Foundation is acceptable for a simple statement like "a total of 100 men and women". The other sources (LDS Daily and Book of Mormon Evidence) should be removed.

  About the baptisms of chiefs: the Washington County Historical Society source does not adequately verify this statement. You will need a source that directly states that the event happened, more than the brief, indirect mention in this source.

  I've found the reason for the dead link; you're correct that it is embedded in the infobox. (The use of an embedded template that's unique to the article is unusual but acceptable. The way the source is embedded is a problem, though.) You can remove this source from the template; just make sure you have other sources for everything that is mentioned.

  — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve implemented all the changes you’ve asked. Here’s some I’ve got some addition comments on:

  I can’t find any other citations about the 85 Native American Chiefs being baptized- if you look closer at the Washington County Historical society notes, it states that there is a speaker who is presenting on the “temple work” being done for them (but doesn’t state baptisms explicitly). If you feel that description would work as a citation, then we can keep it, but as far as I can tell the only other place for citations for that information is a blog. If you feel that won’t work, you can go ahead and remove the information about the chiefs outright, the rest will work.

  Hand chopped is what the source mentions- I am aware of some steam machines that were used back in the day to cut down trees, and people used two man saws to cut down massive trees, so I believe hand chopped (since the sourcing states it), is necessary.

  I’ve tried listing names of temple presidents before and other editors have discouraged it. Usually it is difficult to find a source for every single one (the self published Churchofjesuschristtemples.org will usually list them all), but since I can’t cite it, it amounts to original research. Most complaints I’ve gotten about that about those mentioned is that they are not notable. I can compile a list if you can think of why that would be the case, but I don’t think we need to worry about every name.

  I’ll take a look at a local library later today for some information on that book for source 13- I was the one who put that citation in there, but I will double check it. Every other source (to my best knowledge) has been spot checked.

  The number of the temple is interesting… Technically the first two temples were the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples, but the listing is on temples that are currently in operational use as temples by the Church. (The Kirtland temple is currently opened for tours and was bought from the Community of Christ recently). As far as the sources are concerned, St. George is the first temple in continuous operation… So the wording is tricky, but that’s what I was able to pull from the sourcing.

  I removed the shortened “LDS” from the page, as the Church discourages it’s use and prefers instead “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Since the words LDS is not needed on the page (the sentence it was written with still worked grammatically without it), I went ahead and removed it. Generally, I try to avoid it and its use, as long as it is not disruptive to editing. I attempted to remove Mormon in association with the pioneers (as that is discouraged too), but it looks like another editor had it stick.

  As far as the Kirk M. Curtis citations go, I was able to find a replacement for almost every piece of information related (the information about the scouts is hard to find verification for, I’m OK with it being removed outright). I found references to him on the Brigham Young University website,[1] the University of Utah’s website,[2] a special collections and Archives page from Utah Tech University citing his work.[3] The Church itself has also cited him before in their official releases.[4] If that qualifies him as an influential expert, then we can keep it, otherwise all the information cited to him has a replacement on the page, and it can all be easily removed. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sourcing about the 85 chiefs is not adequate. The source you used mentions someone speaking about the topic; hypothetically, if there was a recording of the speech, that could perhaps be used as a source, but the current sourcing does not directly verify the statement. You can remove the statement.

  As for temple presidents, I will take your word for it. If a reliable source published a list, then it would be best to include it in this article, but you are correct that it is not necessary if there's not adequate sourcing. That being said, I will suggest this change: Notable temple presidents include

  I approve of your phrasing about it being the first temple; this is a good way to handle it. For clarity, I would probably specify first in the Church's list of operating temples.

  I will accept your use of Kirk M. Curtis for the fact about the scout. You have shown that the Church has cited this paper, which means it meets the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

  Just a few other changes are left; this is close to being a GA:

  The infobox lists the height as 175 feet but this is not what the body says.

  The phrasing squat and short is redundant.

  The body still does not verify the lead's use of the word "ancestors". The body uses the phrasing "deceased individuals", which is slightly different as it does not say people were specifically doing this for their own ancestors.

  I still think the mention of the 2019 renovations is not important enough for the lead. But I will accept it either way; you can decide.

  You should change the phrasing of "when the dropped cannon bounced three times, then the foundation was solid enough" since you're not using it as a direct quote anymore.

  The use of the word "eminent" in quotation marks is unnecessary. This could be rephrased to something like historical figures or famous people.

  Remove the statement The Manti Utah and the St. George Utah temples were both designed to follow a castellated style. The sources do not directly compare the two, so it is original research.

  Remove the statement Temples of the church are not used for Sunday worship services. The source does not mention the St. George Utah Temple at all, so it is original research.

  — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, those edits are up too. I removed the rest of the Curtis edits, from what you said it sounded like you wanted me to only include the scout reference, which I have no qualms with. I took the rest out, but we can always revert if you think they are fine to keep.

  I think I'll keep the 2019 renovations in, the temple hasn't had a lot of historical events in the past 50 years, and it seemed notable enough with the architectural restorations bringing it back to its original design that I felt that it was notable enough to keep up there.

  I looked up any videos about the chiefs, and found a video on the BookofMormonEvidence website about a woman named Delores Kahkonen talking about it. Perhaps if it was on a different website it could be a different story. I feel like we already discussed that source, so unless you feel like that is an exception with it being a video, we can still leave it off the page, as we discussed already.

  I'm glad it's close! Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Thank you for working so hard with me on this. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no strong opinions about how to use the Curtis source. It certainly doesn't hurt to have other sources, but since we've determined Curtis is reliable, then the source is reliable.

  I think there are only two changes to make before this is a GA. I think LDS Living is probably unreliable; it can easily be removed since there's another source for the statement. And I will require that you remove the word "notable" from the sentence Notable temple presidents include... per WP:PUFFERY.

  I personally think the 2019 renovations should not be in the lead, per WP:10 year test. However, I will allow you to decide what to do, since it does not violate the GA criteria.

  — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I put in those final edits. The 10 year statement is interesting, I think that although it is notable architecturally for bringing it back to the style it had originally, I think the article works without it, so I took it out. Looking forward to what happens next, let me know if there are any additional changes that need to take place. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]