:::I appreciate the posting of suggested text here rather than insertion of it into the article.  However this approach needs to be accompanied by explanation of the proposed changes.  "I feel that the lead of the article is not representative of the article's contents and does not flow well."  does not suffice as an explanation. 

 :::To take up just a few points: 

 :::"lead not representative of contents" - This is a long and complicated article; the lead has to be selective. 

 :::Bringing the "seer stones" into the lead as you suggest does not improve the lead IMO.  These "stones" are quite unimportant to a basic knowledge of the Book, and my understanding (which may be wrong) is that they are unexplainable in any way other than as "supernatural" or "magic". Including them in the lead without any explanation of their nature, as in the proposed drafts, is unhelpful to a lay audience, and including them with explanation would give them space in the lead way out of proportion to their importance. 

 :::Quote from proposed draft: "Smith claimed to have translated the book, which was written on thin gold plates, from ......"  This says to me that the translation was "claimed" but that it is objective fact that the original was on thin gold plates. 

 :::These are examples of why changes need to be made in a step-wise process, not by wholesale replacement.  I urge Eustress to identify one or two points about the existing lead which they think are in the most need of change.  Thanks,