Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Free and Candid Disquisitions/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 June 2024 [1].

Free and Candid Disquisitions

edit
Nominator(s): Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a disproportionately influential religious pamphlet written by an otherwise minor figure in 18th-century English Protestant history. The pamphlet would prove the primary influence (besides the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) on American Anglican liturgies and served as a catalyst for the Unitarian prayer book tradition. However, its influence on the institution it was explicitly written for–the Church of England–was almost null. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

edit

Will look in later today, UTC. ——Serial Number 54129 23:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: i really hope i'm not annoying you, but it's been six days 750h+ 08:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: if you're available, I'd appreciate you taking the time to add some comments. I'll had time midweek next week to thoroughly engage with anything you might bring up! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evening SN, just checking to see if you are going to be inputting anything here. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Since Pbritti has—probably unbeknownst to themselves—provided me with some reassurances, I am almost certain I will be able to look in tomorrow (UTC) morningish. I can't be more precise, unfortunately; we're having Chinese tonight, and that occasionally has a tendency to leave the next morning's movements more prone to short-term adjustment and alteration than usual. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 19:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review
  • If you're going to start with the interregnum (inter/regnum or "between reigns") then you should line up the previous monarchy and why it failed in a sentence. It would also explain the religious divide. (Something like "following the Civil War of 1642–8 and the execution of the pro-catholic Ch.I... etc")
  • "Non-monarchical" seems slightly EGGy for "Republic"; or perhaps "Commonwealth" (cf. the 1649 Free State Act)
    • You're right. I was about to say that my original could have been misinterpreted to suggest the government was a military dictatorship, but...anyhow, Done.
  • "However, he disadvantaged the Presbyterian party": Not sure the "however" isn't slightly misleading; if I recall, he intended the conference to be a unifying body, whereas this currently reads as if it was intended to disadvantage the Presbyterians.
    • I nixed However,. My reading of the history here is that Charles generally favored the Episcopalians. If the current sentence is still rough, I can tackle it through a more thorough rewrite.
  • You link to John of Gaunt's gaff but not the bishop of Durham's?
    • I apologize, but I don't see what you're referring to. Is this in regard to the Caroline Divines link?
      • No. Link to Durham House? Which own article doesn't mention there link with bp either...
  • You don't agree wrt false titles? Fair enough; it's not a green link for nothing.
  • In fn.2 (which, incidentally, I don't think is necessary for the lead; a technical term like that is probably too much detail for an overarching view), put your [code]wikt:[/code] expression in lowercase, otherwise it redirects after a few seconds.
    • Removed from lead. Did I fix the linking issues?
    • Good stuff!
  • Probably worth noting the change of one king to another; perhaps "Ch.II had died in 1665, and his successor, J.II caused ire with his personal and etc" (perhaps even note that he had acceded with the support of most protestants).
    • Any thoughts? Obviously, your prerogative; I thought it would clarify an already complex narrative, is all.
      • Neglected to respond and describe my repeated efforts to draft something using the sources here. Ultimately, I ended up with a paragraph that felt even more jumbled. Additionally, I felt like it overemphasized an event some 84 years before F&CD was published. Obviously, other editors are welcome to contemplate a way to add this context, as the article isn't "finished". I may consider coming back in a few months with a fresh mind and taking a swing at it. If I do, I may ping you in the edit summary.
  • "The 1689 Liturgy of Comprehension": "The resulting...", as the date date is repeated.
    • Done.
  • "At least two further editions of the pamphlet were published"
    • Done.
  • "documentary evidence": what was this? Evidence of what? If it's evidence of historical events, then suggests this is clarified. If it's "evidence" of a theological bent, then change to sth like "material dating from".
    • Any thoughts?
      • I don't think further clarification is necessary, as I felt the description of Bacon and Calamy's work being included provided context for what this documentary evidence is.
  • "The text's first...": presumably F&CD? Should mention by name, as the last writing mentioned was the appendix. Probably too subtle a difference between appendixes and texts for the general reader.
    • Done.
  • Link catechism / psalter.
    • Weird oversight on my part. Done.
  • "Rather than any error": I suggest clarifying this is any theological or ecclesiological error; the more literal-minded reader might assume typographical...
    • Done.
  • Per BURDEN, inline citation required for "the utmost perfection" and "neither psalm nor hymn", later.
    • Done.
  • The term "office" has been used several times; suggest clarifying these are the Daily Offices.
    • Hi  :)
      • Forgot to mention, but I addressed this by nixing "office" when used in place of "rite". For many of these liturgies, "office" is part of the official or traditional name of the rite. However, given your suggestion that it could be conflated with the canonical hours, I have leaned into a more generalized and common term.
  • Link "baptism" at its first use.
    • Linked at baptismal
  • "The relevancy of The Books of Homilies was also the subject of questioning ": Slightly convoluted perhaps. Can this be clarified.
  • " large, two-part work": Boswell's piece needs some kind of name here (as you provide for others with massive titles), such as Remarks Upon a Treatise.
  • Next sentence then just needs "This defended..."
    • Done.
  • When did Blackburne lambast Jones? Immediately after he had read the MS of F&CD (even though "he returned it without corrections"?) or in his own Remarks?
    • No source elaborates on the point at which this criticism was made, but the context in the citation presented supports After reading the manuscript.
  • Apropos nothing, I'm surprised to find that Feathers Tavern Petition is a redlink...
    • As was I, but don't fret! I plan to write that article and publish alongside an overhaul to Theophilus Lindsey's article by October
  • In the several footnotes where you provide full book titles, it might be worth identifying any reprints, edited versions, etc, so the reader can find up-to-date editions and/or commentary.
    • I don't know of any reprints for any of the volumes discussed (even Disquisitions doesn't appear to have seen reprints after 1750). Two original copies of Hull's Inquiry have popped up for sale online since I started writing this article in January. I could probably offer additional external links to scans.
Source rev.

Pace your previous source reviewer, but there's a few things that need ironing out. The FAC co-ords can point you towards the script-that-you-don't-have-to-use-but-every-seasoned-reviewer-does-so-will-save-a-lot-of-trouble-if-you-do-too. It basically makes attending to FA? #2C (consistency in citation format) and one click process.

  • There's still no page number for Watson 1999.
    • I've received conflicting advice on this over the years: if I'm only citing the one page, should the page number be in the citation or the reference? It's been in the reference.
  • There's no reason for a book published as recently as Dawtry 2001/Marshall 2004 to have solely a 10-digit ISBN; Worldcat will provide the current 13X.
    • Done.
  • For ISBNs, choose a fmt and stick with kt. E,g. 978-X-XXXXX-XXX-X, 978XXXXXXXXXX or 978-X-XX-XXXXXX-X (at the moment you a mixture)
    • Done.
  • For Ditchfield 2008, if pagination is unreliable, use the |loc= parameter + identifying text.
    • Not familiar with the |loc= parameter but I used the identifying quote.
  • Notes and Queries & Methodist History need an OCLC or other identifier.
    • Done.
  • Since you provide locations for 3/4 ODNB citations, the fourth should have one also.

Hope these help, Pbritti. Nice work on an early-modern ecclesiological complexitude  :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! These comments all look like they'll make excellent improvements—I'll get to addressing them later today UTC! I may have some clarifying questions, though, so I apologize for any confusion on my end. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most comments have direct replies now. Anything I haven't replied to yet will get a response sometime in the next 12 hours. I had to make some rushed additions to the article after a work (Nuttall 1973) that had never surfaced in any of my previous perusing popped up when I misspelled F&CD in a google search. I've made sure the reference conforms to the standards explained by you and DM. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Finally got around to addressing every comment I could. Thanks again for your comments! Let me know what you think. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serial ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting on a couple of clarifications Gog the Mild, nothing major, and of course, Pbritti doesn't have to do 'em, but in case they've just slipped through the net.
Still, nothing so fundamental as to prevent a wholehearted support though. As I said: is bloody complex period. But is also a bloody nice article. Thanks to Pbrittie for the work! ——Serial Number 54129 18:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SN. In which case, Pbritti - *cough*! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to both of you, Gog the Mild and Serial Number 54129! I have responded to the outstanding comments (some of which I had a reply in my head for but evidently failed to actually write down). ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good 🍻 ——Serial Number 54129 18:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

UC

edit

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to have to take this one slowly -- that is no criticism of the writing, but rather that there are a lot of political and doctrinal intricacies here and I know only very little about them. What follows is mostly about the lead: in general, I find myself wishing for just a little more context and clarification of the various people, parties and beliefs orbiting around the pamphlet itself. More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The text advocated for reforming the Church of England to enable the reintegration of independent English Protestants, particularly through changes to the liturgies of the mandated 1662 prayer book: this is pretty tough going for someone without a strong grounding in English religious history (is the CofE Protestant, again? Who were these independent Protestants, and how had they become disintegrated? What's a liturgy and what's the story with this prayer book being mandated in 1662? Wasn't there some other kerfuffle about mandating prayer books a bit earlier than that?) The lead has room to expand, given the length of the article, and I think a little more context would be helpful.
    • I gave fixing this a shot. There's a lot of ground to cover if someone isn't already at least broadly familiar with English ecclesiastical history, but I hope that the new lead paragraph is a little more clear. If you want more explanation, I'll add it!
  • statements from historic figures: if we mean "dead people", this should be historical figures: as written, it means "really amazing people".
    • Done
  • drawing several responding texts by contemporaries: I'm not sure this is quite idiomatic English. Suggest amending "The pamphlet's contents were the subject of significant discussion, drawing several responding texts by contemporaries" to something simpler like "Contemporaries [contemporary theologians?] widely discussed the pamphlet's contents, and wrote several texts in response to it".
    • Done: I didn't want to use "theologians" because some of those whose writings are mentioned weren't strictly theologians but rather the 18th-century equivalents to modern pundits. However, my sentence did read atrociously, so I hope it looks clearer now.
  • Is "Dissenters Protestants" usual in HQRS? Reads like "Catholics Christians" to me.
    • Despite its initial peculiarity, yes. On page 1 of Jasper's Prayer Book Revision in England, he refers to "Protestant Dissenters" (a term he largely uses interchangeably with "Nonconformists") to delineate between independent Protestants and Catholics who, for legal purposes, were sometimes treated similarly as groups of separatists from the Church of England.
  • Until the beginning of the Tractarian movement in the next century: I would clarify the nineteeth century, as it's not obvious whether we've crossed the century boundary in talking about all of these responses and influences. Or perhaps, more precisely, "the 1830s"? Isn't it more often known as the Oxford Movement?
    • Since there's some overlap during the 1830s into the 1840s (and the hesitancy of sources like Jasper to generally draw a hard line on the transition), I went with the more general "19th century". Forgot to mention, but in this case, I'm going with "Tractarian" because this is the term more associated with the specific liturgical proposals as described in RSs. They're fundamentally interchangeable, though.
  • Following the collapse of the Protectorate with the Stuart Restoration, King Charles II of England elevated the Episcopalian party that had been marginalized during the Interregnum: another dense one that could do with a bit of space to breathe, especially for those not familiar with the English Civil War and its aftermath: what was the Protectorate, who was Stuart, was the Episcopalian Party like the Labour Party, and was the Interregnum different to the Protectorate?
    • I ended up rewriting a substantial portion of this paragraph to clarify things a tad more.
  • who favoured bishops and other more Catholic practices: I worry here that we're unconsciously accepting one side of the argument: yes, Catholics had bishops, but did it follow that having bishops was a specifically Catholic practice (as opposed to a perfectly Anglican one?) After all, Catholics also built churches, but nobody would have said that building churches was a Catholic practice. Perhaps "other practices in common with Catholicism", "pre-Reformation practices" or something better along those lines? Would an Episcopalian have agreed that these practices were more Catholic (and less... what, exactly?)
    • I'd appreciate you checking if my tweaks improved the situation. I'm trying to stick with verbiage present in sourcing while avoiding implying any biases.
      • who favoured bishops and worship more similar to Catholic practices, that had been marginalized during the preceding Interregnum: there are improvements here, but also still some problems. Firstly, ambiguity as written: were the bishops or just the worship more similar to Catholic practices? Secondly, what's the antecedent of that: "Catholic practices", "worship" and/or "bishops"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see the reason for giving "St Bartholemew's Day", but as we're using it as a date, perhaps including the more conventional date would help those without a calendar of saints' days on their walls?
    • Done. What do you mean, I thought 17th-century kalendars were dispersed to everyone upon reaching the age of reason...[Humor]
  • William Sancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had advised the bishops in his jurisdiction: does in his jurisdiction mean "all of them" (in his capacity as the senior primate) or "those in southern England"? If the former, I'd suggest cutting it as more confusing than helpful: if the latter (or something else), suggest clarifying.
    • I dropped the element that introduced vagueness. What's relevant to the subject is that Sancroft, as Archbishop of Canterbury, wanted institutional comprehension of Dissenters.
  • We've gone back and forth between "Anglican" and "Church of England" as adjectives: I'd suggest picking one.
    • Implemented with the exception of two cases where "Anglican" is the "correct" word.
  • prayer book revision: hyphenate as a compound modifier (it's used again later, too).
    • I opted to adjust the phrase throughout due to my own dislike for the hyphen rule's tendency to create punctuation confusion.
  • Suggest using p. as the abbreviation in the quote box (not pg.) to match the footnotes.
    • Done. Great catch!
  • The Athanasian Creed is linked on first and third mention: I can't really see a logic for linking the third but not the second (and, to be honest, I'm not sure I can see one for linking either of the latter two).
    • Done. That was a was an overlink. Thanks for the catch!
  • due to its incomprehensibility rather than any error: there's a potential confusion here around the meaning of comprehension: I think you're still using it to mean "making Anglicanism palatable to Dissenters", but a reader might be forgiven for thinking you now mean "people understanding the liturgy". "Due to its incomprehensibility" is also too subjective a statement, I think, to put so starkly in Wikivoice: presumably at least some people thought it was perfectly understandable?
    • Everyone–regardless of whether they approved or disapproved of the creed–seems to have agreed that it was a bit complex, so I went with that.
  • the removal of the Athanasian Creed (due to its incomprehensibility rather than any error), excessive repetition of the Lord's Prayer and Gloria Patri, and anything not permitted by the Bible.: I would have a look at rephrasing this one: the structure (in particular, the reliance of everything on removal) is a little murky, and it took me two reads to realise that he wanted to remove (what he saw as) the repetition of the Lord's Prayer rather than proposing its excessive repetition.

A few more: sorry that I've not been particularly speedy:

  • Section IX sought correct printings of the Bible and prayer book: this seems like it would need some explanation: surely nobody wanted incorrect printings? Was there a particular problem with dodgy texts (the Wicked Bible comes to mind here)?
    • My understanding is that this is partially typological, partially theological. The only source to address this section in any depth is Hatchett 1982, which describes it thus: "The author pleas for correct printing of the Bible and Prayer Book". I tweaked the sentence to suggest typological corrections more clearly but I don't have an source that can get us further.
  • The article uses the -ized suffix: as the article has strong WP:TIES to Britain, I think we should use the BrE -ised. There may be other EngVar matters of a similar sort.
    • I went with Oxford English, a Wikipedia-accepted EngVar basically identical to British English but with "-ize" endings, because many of the sources I used did likewise. I've done the same with most of the other Anglican liturgy articles I've started. If you think standard British English is superior, I'll change it!
  • Could we introduce Isaac Watts: in particular, that he was a nonconformist?
    • Yep, done.
  • Desiring a better metrical psalter, : not quite grammatical (a dangling participle): there's no grammatical subject for desiring except the Sternhold and Hopkins psalter, which clearly didn't desire its own removal.
    • Done.
  • Thirty-nine Articles is linked on second body mention, but not first.
    • Done.
  • reopening the Bangorian Controversy: a bit of background on what/when that was would be helpful.
    • Since the only source that engages with connection between the pamphlet and the controversy is rather dated and doesn't elaborate, simplifying in favor of encyclopedic summary.
  • Note 4: per MOS:CONFORM, we should put Boswell's title into title case.
    • Done.
  • Theological desires similar to those of Jones may have motivated Herring accepting a nomination to the archiepiscopate: could be clearer: perhaps "it has been suggested [by so-and-so] that Herring may have accepted the archbishop's position out of a desire to enact reforms similar to those suggested by Jones"? The current formulation is concise but also pretty tricky reading.
  • However, it is generally considered that ... However, Herring would express uncertainty regarding: can we look at the repetition of however? On another note, I'm not sure of the tense of would express: suggest "After his appointment, Herring expressed...".
    • Done.
  • Could like "peremptoriness" to Wiktionary?
    • Link? If so, done.
  • Jones published Catholic Faith in Practice in 1765 and established the Catholic Christianity Society: presumably Catholic doesn't mean Roman Catholic in this context? Is that worth clarifying?
    • Added "Protestant-aligned" with the hopes of clarifying that point.
      • As I read it, I would still expect that society to be full of Roman Catholics. If that's not the case, suggest footnoting. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Religious terminology, particularly in England, is rife with these frustrating usages that lend themselves to misinterpretation. I've decided to just delete the proper name on the grounds that, for the non-expert reader, what they don't know can't confuse them.
  • a half dozen individuals: any reason not to go with six people, or around it to something like "six further proposed revisions to the prayer book were published"?
    • Done.
  • only one was theologically orthodox: would the five other authors have agreed? Might be worth flipping the other way: that five questioned fundamental points of (Anglican? Christian?) doctrine.
    • Clarified.
  • Charles Wesley's 1784 The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America was very similar to Lindsey's liturgy, Jones's suggestions, and the Savoy Conference's Puritan proposals.: ever since watching Dead Poets' Society, I have a visceral reaction to the word very. As written, this sentence implies that all three of Lindsey's liturgy, Jones's suggestions and the Savoy Conference's proposals were very similar to each other: is that true?
    • Tweaked and clarified.
  • Following the American Revolution,: I would put a date on this: most people will know it's vaguely in the late C18th, but the precise chronology is important here and not everyone will have it down.
    • Added some BLUESKY dates.
  • The proposed revision submitted in 1786 featured a preface of queries later described by liturgist Marion J. Hatchett as an outline of Free and Candid Disquisitions. as the most significant of the William Smith's work on the 1786 proposed prayer book led some of his fellow clergymen to believe he had made the revision with a copy of Free and Candid Disquisitions beside him.: this bit seems to have gone wonky.
    • Recent typo I introduced. Sorry about that!
      • Much better, though now missing a space before the start of this sentence. Might consider rephrasing (per MOS:IDIOM led some of his fellow clergymen to believe he had made the revision with a copy of Free and Candid Disquisitions beside him to e.g. used a copy of FaCD in the writing of his revised version -- there's a MOS:IDIOM quibble here that he may not literally have had it physically beside him, nor would it have mattered unless he read it and referred to it. It would at least be useful to clarify beforehand that Smith made a revised version of the prayer book; that lead is currently a little buried. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha! Per Marshall and the referenced writings, it appears that they quite literally (rather than hyperbolically/idiomatically) believed that Smith had a copy of the pamphlet at his side while working on his revision. I've adjusted the sentence to provide greater clarity and remove suggestion of idiom.
  • Demonstrating the desire for substantial change beyond simple alterations,: another dangling participle that would be better reworked.
    • Done.
  • Richard Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, would publish...: better as simply published, I think.
    • Done.
  • forwarded revisions to restore these practices: I haven't seen forwarded to mean put forward here, as opposed to in the sense of forwarding a letter or email, but that might just be my own limited lexis.
    • Done. Changed to "prompted".
  • Strictly, a Low-Church bias should be hyphenated as a compound modifier.
    • Done.

I think that's all for a first pass -- over to you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

edit

Working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Armentraut/Slocum's "Prayer Book Preface" entry doesn't say anything about the 1979 edition.
    • Is the adjusted sentence better? I feel like it's BLUESKY but that's up to your judgement.
      • I think your BLUESKY point is valid. The source from 2000 refers to "every edition" and it only takes a minute to establish that the current edition is from 1979. Feel free to revert. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armentraut/Slocum could use an ISBN. Though you're citing the online version, I think it's necessary since it is listed on the website.
    • Done.
  • Cuming could use an OCLC number. Same with Halkett.
    • Done.
  • Ditchfield 2005 has a date in the inline citation but not the source listing.
  • Ditchfield 2008 supports one sentence. Is that one sentence really supported by 17 pages of text? If not, a page number in the in-line citation would be appropriate.
    • The only version I had access to was this PDF. The pagination in it is not that of the book that it draws from. Should I use page 8 from the PDF even though that’s the wrong page number for the book?
      • I think so, especially because you link the PDF, which makes it the obvious go-to version for anyone wanting to verify the claim it supports in the article. I just modified the source listing myself in a way similar to a modification made through an FAC discussion like this for one of my previous successful nominations. Feel free to edit that addition a little when you add the page number to the inline citation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at Armentrout through Halkett and I'll have time soon to take a look at the other sources. Then I'll look more closely at the inline citations themselves and formatting. All of the books I've looked at so far are held by reputable-looking libraries, so I trust they're all high quality. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see New York City Wikilinked in one source listing and not in another. I recommend not Wikilinking either, given how commonly known a city it is.
    • Done: Whoops, that's an embarrassing mistake.
  • Oxford University Press shows up a number of times, sometimes with a publication city listed and sometimes not. You should add it in all listings.
    • Did you handle this? I don't see an example of this issue but maybe my eyes are glazing over.
      • Nope. I'm looking at Sharp, Stephens, and Stewart. Walsh also needs a publication city. And I'm also now seeing that Williams has no publisher or publication city. I see you're using an online version, but since it is based on a print work from 1959 with an OCLC number, I think this info is warranted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peaston could use an OCLC number.
    • Done
  • Sharp, Stephens, and Stewart all have a date in the inline citation but not the source listing.
    • Done
  • The citations for Halkett et al and Healy both refer to page 327 in their respective books. Is that error or coincidence?
    • Yep, that's a coincidence–I never even noticed! I have a photo of the relevant page that I took when I had the book so I can privately message it if anyone needs to verify/check for close paraphrasing.
  • Watson 1999 needs more specific page numbering in its inline citations.
File:Page from Watson.png
@Pbritti: FTR here is the page from Watson cited. ——Serial Number 54129 19:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done: The PDF is from OUP and I'm fairly confident the pagination marks are accurate, but I don't have the full ebook or a hard copy.

Having now looked through all the sources and citations, I would say they all look reputable. The Notes and Queries article sent up a red flag given its age (1860), but it is nevertheless a lot newer than the subject at hand, so I wouldn't call it a primary source or anything. And its a scholarly journal anyway. Everything else is either an at least relatively modern scholarly article or a reputable-looking book, almost all of which are held at academic libraries. The citations are consistently formatted, with a few minor exceptions to be addressed, above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Dugan Murphy! Your help has been outstanding. Let me know if you think of any other things that would preclude this from being a FA! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since all the issues I raised are addressed, and given what I said in my summary above, I say this source review is a pass. My own FAC nomination is just over a week old and only has one reviewer so far. Could you take a look? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! I should have time tomorrow. This does come with the caveat that I did do some monkeying around in the article in the immediate aftermath of that bizarre effort to PROD it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check: pass

edit
  • Citation 1 Halkett et. al. 1926, p. 327: checks out
  • Citation 20 Westerfield Tucker 1996, p. 243: checks out

To complete a spot check, I need scans of a few pages emailed to me:

Earwig didn't find any likely plagiarism. The most likely matches it found were mostly long book titles. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy: I am regrettably in a different state than most of my books at the moment. This rather annoying barrier will be remedied Wednesday. I will send you any pages I happen to have scanned already ASAP, with the rest arriving by 22:00 UTC Wednesday. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoosh—the first text, Hatchett 1982, is currently coursing through pneumatic piping as we speak. Please let me know how you'd like me to send further scans. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hatchett 1982 pages received. Send me the other requested pages when you are back with your books. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have all the scans now, Dugan Murphy. Sadly, a work emergency called me home a few days early. Happily, I could take pictures of my books. Sorry for the Healy 2023 scan—it's a picture of a copy from a bookstore. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Received! The pages you sent me fully support the sentences preceding them. Send me the requested pages from Jasper 1954 and Hatchett 1980 when you get a chance. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper 1954 sent and Hatchett 1980 early tomorrow UTC. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper 1954 received. Never mind about Hatchett 1980. The claim it supports is already supported by another citation, so I don't think I need to see it. I have one question I just posed above concerning citation 7, but I think I already know the answer to that question, so I'm going to say this spot check is a pass. Nevertheless, I think it is worthwhile to get your response to that question above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @Dugan Murphy: your willingness to offer a more in-depth review on such short notice is much appreciated. I have addressed the citation 7 matter to reflect the uncertainty regarding whether this is a "known fact". ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit
General
  • I made some changes around the dashes to bring it in line with the MOS
    • Thank you!
Background
  • "reestablishment" is hyphenated in BrEng
    • Done
  • "King Charles II came to power": you don't need his title here (you say he came to power as King)
    • Good point! Done.
  • "While Charles had promised religious toleration to Royalist Presbyterians—who did not approve of bishops and worshipped according to Reformed forms within the Church of England—and Episcopalians with the Declaration of Breda in 1660, his convening of the Savoy Conference in 1661 to consider the future of the Church of England's liturgical worship disadvantaged the Presbyterian party." This 103-word sentence is carrying a lot of information and it's too easy to get lost in it. Maybe recast as two, more manageable ones?
    • Egads—when you quote it like that, I can't help but agree. Let me know if that's more manageable now.
  • Should "Convocation" be capitalised here?
    • RSs seem consistently in favor of capitalization (I've seen an exception in a book I didn't reference that discussed a later subject). I don't know the MOS enough to be certain here. Will make lowercase if preferred.
    I don't mind either way: I ask from a position of complete ignorance on the point! - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ronald Jasper forwarded": 'forwarded'? Neither the OED or its Cambridge equivalent suggest a meaning that works here
    • A bad colloquialism used around these parts. Done.
  • Link Trinity?
    • Linked at Trinitarianism.
  • That's fine. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contents
Sources
  • Why do you have some publishers linked and not others (and why the same publisher in some places and not others?) Can I suggest you make consistent by removing all publisher links: it's so rare that people find publisher links either useful or helpful, that it's probably best without them (think: are people reading this really going to want to see that Alfred A. Knopf is an American publishing house? It doesn't aid understanding one iota).
    • Done. You're right. The inconsistency came from the templates employed (Cite ODNB automatically includes OUP but does not link it). I have dispensed with the linking.
  • Even more so the linking of publisher locations. "Oxford: Oxford University Press" and "Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: " is doubly pointless and goes into WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUEterritory. Ditch the lot is my advice.
    • Done

I hope these help - SchroCat (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: thank you for your comments and revisions! I have implemented them with the exception of the Trinity and Convocation ones. For those, please let me know if you'd like me to move the link and make lowercase respectively. Any additional comments are also very welcomed! ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RoySmith

edit

Just a few random comments:

  • I think you want {{snd}} instead of raw emdashes to avoid bad line breaks as in File:Screenshot showing bad dash.png.
    • Done.
  • Among the changes to the prayer book and its liturgies that Jones sought in order to effect comprehension was the removal of -> "...were the removal of"
  • You might want to link "pamphlet" to Pamphlet wars instead of Pamphlet
  • including a rite for visitation of prisoners does this mean a prayer asking that you be allowed to visit, or is this something that once you have been granted visitation, you can perform with the prisoner?
    • Clarified.
  • Charles had promised religious toleration to both Royalist Presbyterians – who did not approve of bishops and worshipped according to Reformed forms within the Church of England – and Episcopalians with the Declaration of Breda in 1660. It's not clear what "with the Declaration of Breda" modifies. Are you saying that Charles used the declaration to make this promise? Or are there some Episcopalians who have the declaration and some who don't, and the promise only applies to the former group? I'm pretty sure it's the first, but the distance between the two clauses makes the connection unclear.
  • All of the above are nits; make changes or not at your pleasure. The bottom line is this is a wonderful piece of expository writing in an engaging and flowing style that I'm happy to support. This is a topic I know almost nothing about, so my support is for the quality of the prose only; I rely on others who know more about the topic itself to comment on correctness and completeness. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Free_and_Candid_Disquisitions/archive1&oldid=1228007100"