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

Free and Candid Disquisitions edit

Featured article candidates/Free and Candid Disquisitions/archive1

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 750 h+ 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]

Image review

File:Rev_Samuel_Clarke.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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.
- Is the adjusted sentence a little clearer? I'm also considering a multi-sentence version, but I want to emphasize that all these things are geared towards comprehension. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Courtesy ping for @UndercoverClassicist: are there any outstanding issues remaining? I'll have time Wednesday and Thursday to address any new comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:35, 19 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.
- ~~Template:Cite ODNB inexplicably does not support the parameter date=. What would you suggest?~~
  - Kicked off a conversation on the issue.
  - Done
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]
    - Oh, the ODNB template, again. Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:22, 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.
- 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]