Talk:Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 20th-century warfare

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Peer Review- Cori Bushman It sounds very good. The use of a direct quote from your source in the Member Involvement in World War I section (President Smith) and also in the world war 2 section, under effects on the church. Maybe do paraphrasing instead because wikipedia doesn't like direct quotes. It seems a little biased with the church when you say "prove wrong the common misconception that Latter-Day Saints had no sense of national loyalty" even though I know this is from a source but it makes it sound like you are defending the church. Also maybe include a link to another page explaining missionaries or explain a bit more about them here since people might not know much about LDS missionaries.

Review - Ayden Olsen The first thing that caught my attention was ambiguous pronoun use. For example, under Effects on the Church, the first sentence claims that President Smith was concerned about 'their' entrance into war. I have no idea who (or what) 'their' refers to. The same applies to the last sentence of the first paragraph in the same section. 'The United States issued a warning... leave the country for their own protection' - this sentence is also very ambiguous. I wasn't sure if Americans were supposed to leave the United States or Germany. Also, there are some grammatical errors and run-on sentences throughout the article (it's/its, date format inconsistencies and errors, comma splices, etc...) I liked that you've written an introduction paragraph. It really helps to tie the article together (even before reading it) and summarize the key points you plan on making. I feel it could be longer and include more links to other Wikipedia articles. Having links to other articles makes your own article look more complete and in place, and additionally gives your readers the opportunity to read more about other topics related to your article. Also note that the majority of Wikipedia readers won't understand terms like General Authority. A short explanation and a link to another article would fix that easily. The last thing I'd bring up is sentence structure and diction. You want your article to have a tone that's informative, neutral, and official, rather than persuasive, opinionated, and fluid. Read some other Wikipedia articles to get an idea of the standard vocabulary and diction used.

RuthHyde05 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

The wars and the churches involvment where diffrent. Both are notable for there own articles. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say fix the problems with this article first. ~Awilley (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]