[MaxGanzII]

In what way?

The subjects are utterly different.

All I can think of is that it introduces you to Smith and his style of writing. To my eye, this is not of any particular value.

[protomyth]

It gives you a primer on his thought process and views which is useful to understand the later work. Understanding an author's beliefs can help interpretation of works.

[psyc]

Not writing style. The way he thinks. "Where he's coming from." Some of what his values and worldview are, etc.

[bobthechef]

From Wikipedia:

“ The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a 1759 book by Adam Smith.[1][2][3] It provided the ethical, philosophical, psychological, and methodological underpinnings to Smith's later works, including The Wealth of Nations (1776), Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795), and Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue, and Arms (1763) (first published in 1896).”

[MaxGanzII]

Wikpedia can write what it likes; to my eye that's empty prose.

[mdp2021]

You are supposed to attempt convincing the reader that "your eye" has public merit, credentials, arguments.

[Supermancho]

> "your eye" has public merit, credentials, arguments.

I'm not convinced Wikipedia has that either. Some things it gets factually correct, granted. The subjectivity that is selected by wikipedia editors to characterize, is always in question.

[meowkit]

> The subjectivity that is selected by <insert pretty much anything here> to characterize, is always in question.

So provide something more convincing, not in question, and not subjective. Same problem as your parent comment.

Wikipedia is nice because it is mostly inter-subjective - there are always multiple authors monitoring its state to come to a consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity