Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maryland Toleration Act/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:10, 28 November 2009 [1].

Maryland Toleration Act edit

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Maryland Toleration Act/archive1

This article's come a long way, with good reviews at both GAN and PR, and a thorough copyedit by the peer reviewer. I know there's gotta be some problem with the refs, despite my checking repeatedly, since I never get them quite right, but think it's ready to be picked apart at FA. Thanks in advance for your reviews. Geraldk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline 1b,c,2c: There appears to be an extensive untapped literature, of which the literature used here is not adequately representative, and where major features of the topic are not currently discussed. Referenced material producing facts and analysis has not been correctly cited (by author admission). 1d: Despite the hundred of years, there is a failure to adequately deal with anti-papist and anti-dissent opinion forming; Toleration is portrayed in a modern manner inappropriate to the subject matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC) ~~Comment~~ Extensive sourcing issues unaddressed by author prior to FAC. (2c, citation consistency)[reply]

I've abandoned the cite ____ templates for flexibility, which due to my referencing incompetence may make things worse rather than better, but we'll see. Geraldk (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date consistency: "December 1957" in the article, the December is an issue name, not a date. Generally dates are inconistent September 21, 1649 (Old or New style?) yet, "Retrieved 2009-11-13"

I've changed the dates in the refs so they are consistent with the date formatting in the article. Have tried to deal with the issue name / date issue, but not confident of the result, so let me know if that is what it should look like. Unfortunately, the sources that I used for the date are not clear about whether the date is old style or has been converted. Any ideas on how to deal with that? Geraldk (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using publisher locations, all publishers must be located.

Done. Geraldk (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles must be signed by experts to be high quality reliable sources, you don't name the article in the encyclopedia or the articles author. Treat for citation as if a chapter in a book. Finkelman, Paul (2006). The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. CRC Press. ISBN 0415943426.

The article is written by Finkelman, who also edited the encyclopedia. I've added the title of the entry, but am I correct in assuming I don't need to include his name twice? Geraldk (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly good sign about the RS quality. How long is the article. Does it explicitly name Finkleman as the author? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's online, so it isn't difficult to look up. It's only about a page, and it does explicitly mention Finkelman. Geraldk (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a Scholar publishing in a non-scholarly mode (its too short, even for law). Pursue the material you would cite from there through Finkleman's references. Also its pp975-6 in the Books edition you cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you indicate the publisher of one journal, you need to do it for all of them (Church History versus Constitutional Comment)

Done. Geraldk (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite US law correctly? "Maryland Toleration Act". Yale University Avalon Project. 1649. Retrieved 2009-11-11.

I'm afraid I don't know the proper format for this. How should it be formatted? Geraldk (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to look up the citation of US law. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the help. Geraldk (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1c commentary

You are reliant on Finkleman. Failure to indicate that this is a high quality source will not be good for your 1c status.

I rely on Finkelman largely because his presentation is compact, but could add additional in-line citations to other sources I've used which make the same points if you prefer. I do believe Finkelman is reliable, he is a professor who specializes in American legal history at the Albany Law School, website here. Geraldk (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically a 1c failure right there, "but could add additional in-line citations to other sources I've used which make the same points if you prefer." Please ping me when you've written the article to FAC standard? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled by your response. Not just the unwarranted rudeness, but the suggestion for some reason that because other sources have the same information, but I've chosen to use a source that is both accessible to readers and reliable rather than listing in-line cites for offline sources somehow weakens the article. Do you have a substantive concern about the reliability of the source? Geraldk (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia article you're citing is not, in my mind, a "High Quality Reliable Source." Its a signed Tertiary by an expert, but it is well under the expected word count for HQRS in legal history. It may be Reliable in a strict sense, but it is so emaciated an account that it certainly isn't HQRS (the fact that the tertiary is smaller than this article is of concern, it appears as though we've expanded upon Finkleman). That you've channelled verifiability into a single source due to access issues is not commendable, it removes the actual verification process. A courtesy link is a courtesy, it doesn't carry the weight of the verification. It is fine to cite a single fact with multiple verifying items. Your expression also creates a deep sense of doubt in my mind, which is developed by the 1b/d issues over anti-Catholicism, and sustained by comparing the 1b/c material gathered against a rapid search of the literature. The Maryland Toleration Act has obviously been a focus of significant scholarly attention. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation please, "the Enlightenment, which is generally considered to be when the idea of religious freedom took root"

Out of time right now, will add tonight. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1c / 1b commentary

Hostile and negative receptions of the law are dismissed and understated. The political/economic elements of anti-Toleration in the United Kingdom and specifically the American colonies are inadequately contextualised. The text presents a naive Whig theory of history which I'm unsure originates in Finkleman or American (legal history) triumphalism.

Yeah, sorry, this comment's a little above my head. You mind breaking down 'naive Whig theory of history' so I can better understand what you are getting at? If your concern is that the article's treatment of how the law's being an early example of religious 'tolerance' contrasts with its exclusion of non-Christians is not balanced, then I can certainly reword. Also, what do you mean by the political/economic elements of anti-Toleration? What are you looking for me to include in that area? Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People hated the law at the time. Protestants repealed it instantly, and repeatedly. The concerns and politics of British repression of catholics and dissent isn't contextualised. The anti-Catholic anti-dissent views are brushed over entirely, and viewed from an anachronistically modern context. The Whig theory of history is an analysis of (predominantly) legally focused institutional histories generated which view the secular anglo-american state as the perfection of mankind and the epitome of civilisation, and reflects on all things leading towards this blessed state in terms of its promotion or hinderance of Whiggery. Basically, its explaining the past in terms of how it creates the present. This article projects contemporary ideas backwards onto the concept of religious tolerance in the 17th century. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I think I understand you to say that the article judges the law within the idea (right or wrong) that it was one further step towards a perfect state of religious tolerance as embodied in the Constitution. That was certainly not intentional. Will go back to the sources tonight, although as I recall they did not go into much depth about the Protestant opinion of the law at the time aside from saying that as soon as they had an opportunity, Protestants repealed it. The larger background of British repression of Catholics will take the identification of new sources, and may take a day or two to complete properly. And I suppose some scrubbing of language is in order. Thanks for the clarification. Geraldk (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does come across as very much addressing whether or not this legislation was a "further step towards a perfect state of religious tolerance as embodied in the Constitution." Readers will be interested in that, but we should provide them with raw materials rather than a conclusion. (If you can't find materials on Maryland, general comments on seventeenth century toleration should be found in discussions of Independency and of the 1689 English Act of Toleration.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the thorough review. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Yet
- This law was passed September 21, 1649. How, then, is its repeal of 1654 seven years later?
- More importantly, this is eight months after the execution of Charles I, four years after the outlawry of the Book of Common Prayer. There is very little sense of this context, and the implication that the Civil War began in 1652 is nonsense.
- By the same token, the claim that the parliamentary commissioner Claiborne was a staunch advocate for the Anglican Church is most unlikely.
- It seems almost equally unlikely (although more technical) that (in 1651) he was appointed by Cromwell in person; Cromwell spent most of that year in Scotland.
- A rebellion of Catholics overthrew Calvert in 1688? Is this vandalism? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

File:Large Broadside on the Maryland Toleration Act.jpg - Please add a date and verifiable source.
File:Claiborne.jpg - Please add a brief description of this image, an author, and full publication information for the source.

These issues should be able to be fixed quickly and I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.