Smalley's postion on these matters is essentially the same in his most recent work - he is still writing on the subject.  Moreover, Smalley's perception is also that of many other leading authorities on the Gospels in the early church; such as [[Christopher Rowland (theologian)|Christopher Rowland), who may not (unlike Smalley), be specialists in the Johannine literature.  The pespectives reperesented in the article as it is currently, represent (to my reading) one particular strand of the 'redaction critical' approach.  Broadly, this approach shares with Smalley/Rowland, a decreased tendency to regard the Synoptic Gospels as transmitting a 'historical' source.  But the corollary is to treat both the gospel genre; and much of the charactersistic gospel content; as a theological construct - specifically due to the author of Mark.  But if Mark 'invented' the feeding in the wilderness as a theological construct, then the presence of the same story in John shows dependence.  But this view of Mark is not by any means a consensus; many scholars (like Smalley and Rowland) would maintain that there were indeed independent 'historical' accounts of Jesus's ministry and gospel message that preceded both the Synpoptics and John, and provided the basis for their common narrative material. This is not reflected in the article at present