A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Free and Candid Disquisitions has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 4, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance). England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Free and Candid Disquisitions appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the only proposal from the 1749 book Free and Candid Disquisitions to be implemented by the Church of England was a prayer "for the ceasing of the distemper" of cattle? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Free and Candid Disquisitions.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Free and Candid Disquisitions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review by Fritzmann

Hello Pbritti, I'll take this review. Just read the DYK hook and got a chuckle out of that, so I am looking forward to reading the full article! If a bullet point requires response/action, it would be great if you could reply to each one directly and in-line; that just makes it easier to see what still needs to be done. Thanks!

• Link "Anglican" in the first sentence? Rephrased that sentence. ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a simpler way to say "abortive effort"?  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• I think the lead's structure is generally strong, but if anything it could stand to be longer. There are several phrases that are rather impermeable to a lay reading (ex. "advocacy of private revisions") that might benefit from a few more words of explanation or simplification, even if that lengthens the lead. Partially rewritten and expanded. ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• "The 1689 Liturgy of Comprehension was rejected by Convocation by their disinterest in discussing it over the fate of the nonjurors." I may still be waking up, but I'm having trouble making heads or tails of this sentence. Who does "their" refer to, and who are the "nonjurors"?
• "As Dissenters' enjoyed..." I don't think this should be possessive  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• "who felt its concessions were too great and (could) be used to..."  Done ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "many of whom were contemporaries with him" perhaps "many of whom were his contemporaries"  Done ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "and anything not permitted by the Bible" Is this Jones' verbiage? Or are there other examples that he uses that are just summed up in this phrase? This is not Jones's exact verbiage, but an approximation of several different summations of his writing by a couple sources. ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "only explicit doctrinal change" I'm a little confused at this, from inexperience with the language. Were the other suggestions not doctrinal changes, or were they just not explicit? What makes something an explicit change (as opposed to an inferred one, I assume)? Further, did Jones give reasoning behind wanting to change or abolish infant baptism, and did he give suggestions for those alterations? The other changes were ritual/ceremonial in nature, rather than suggesting an alteration in doctrine. Infant baptism was/is was a controversial practice among Protestants, and Jones's opposition was a doctrinal statement in opposition to it (the sources acknowledge this). The other changes could be seem as implying doctrinal changes (such as developing a lower theology of the Eucharist and challenging the importance of the Lord's Prayer), but did not outright challenge the orthodoxy of the time. ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why John White's refutation is not elaborated upon while that of John Boswell is? I'm assuming the latter was more impactful than the former but I would like to make sure White's criticism was not as influential and only draws mention in two sources: the 1860 Notes and Queries article and the ODNB article that cites Notes and Queries. The mention of White in ODNB was enough for me to deem it encyclopedically relevant enough to mention, but it doesn't really show up in the historiography. ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "This led some to believe that Blackburne had been the author" do we know who thought this? The sources I've used do not elaborate on any details regarding who thought this. Presumably, they are sourcing this claim to Blackburne's own writings on the subject, where he was intentionally vague. ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "had read it in manuscript and suggested no changes. After reading the manuscript, Blackburne lambasted Jones" This sounds to me like suggesting a change  Done ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "it (is) generally considered that Thomas Herring..."  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• The sentence beginning with "Herring, who had perhaps been motivated..." is quite unwieldy. Is there a way it could be split while maintaining the quote's place in it?  Done ~ 21:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "However, Free and Candid Disquisitions's appeal for unofficial revisions succeeded" I don't see how this is related to the previous sentence; it may flow better if integrated into the subsequent paragraph, or if it is rephrased somewhat.  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Theophilus Lindsey, a son-in-law of (a?) Blackburne and Feathers Tavern petitioner"  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• The article seems broadly comprehensive, but there is one aspect I find missing. What is the modern consensus on the impact of this work? How has it been treated by history? The closest we get to current day views are mentions of 19th century works that include praise for or criticism of the work. A summary of more recent opinions on or analyses of Free and Candid Disquisitions would be welcome if enough material for that exists. See reply below ~ 19:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overall, the prose is of high quality. A few sentences push towards being run-ons, but the writing is generally very clear. I greatly appreciate the use of notes; the lack of lengthy titles and explanations in the middle of the text makes it much easier to read. I don't think they are overdone in the slightest. I've gotten the comment about sentence length before. Working on improving that. ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• A source check of references 7, 14, and 17 yields no clear issues. Throughout the article, it is made clear who is claiming what about whom, and I do not have any synthesis concerns. Assuming good faith on the print sources. Thanks! ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• All of the images used are in the public domain, but the Isaac Watts image has a notice about a possible copyright claim from the National Portrait Gallery. I'm not familiar with the dispute nor am I a copyright expert, but I would like to ask if you believe the image to be necessary and improves the article. After a cursory reading of the dispute, I think that that would be sufficient to justify its inclusion. The NPG has had a long-running dispute with Wikipedia over use of its images. The images are legally public domain in the US and, frankly, I like sticking it to the NPG any time I can. ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made some minor formatting and grammatical changes to the article, feel free to review them and revert any that you see fit. Thank you for an interesting church history article, I certainly learned quite a bit from reading it! Please drop me a ping once you've responded to everything or if you have any questions. Fritzmann (message me) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @Fritzmann2002: Thanks for taking up the review! I wanted to first off say that your initial comments seem very helpful and that I've begun working through them. I'm currently visiting family, but I'll be able to privately send copies of print sources from my personal library starting at around 0:00 UTC on Saturday. If you find that there is a citation you want verified and are willing to wait, just identify it and I'll gladly privately send you a copy of the page(s) that verify the article's content. Thank you again for taking up this review! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbritti: thank you for offering to send print sources, but I don't think that is necessary. I didn't find any issues in those sources available online, so I have no reason to believe that there would be any glaring ones for those in print. Feel free to take your time on the review, I'm certainly not in any rush! Fritzmann (message me) 17:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Modern consensus: This is a difficult thing. I've found five academics in the last century that have treated Disquisitions in substantial depth, all in the context of liturgy. Peaston, Jasper, and Cumings were all roughly contemporaries but Peaston represents a more Dissenter-centric perspective than any of the historians I cite here. Peaston addressed Disquisitions in its objective historic context, then in its influence on successive Dissenter liturgies. However, Peaston does not offer a view beyond "it was ineffective". Both Jasper and Cumings lean into Peaston's research and–adding in additional related liturgical developments–draw a similar conclusion. Jasper, in particular, comes closest to saying something explicitly about the importance of Disquisitions, and I utilized his brief appraisal for the last two sentences of the article. Hatchett recognized the lingering impact of the text insofar as it influenced American Anglicans, while Hefling addresses Disquisitions to encapsulate the futility of revision efforts during the 18th century. I tried to address all these threads while remaining true to the source material and without adding my own commentary, but I can ask around and look under a few more rocks to see what I can find. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Fritzmann2002: Any remaining outstanding concerns? Feel welcome to get back to me today or tomorrow, as I'll have time to remediate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Y all good from me! Promoting the GA now, congratulations! Fritzmann (message me) 00:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only looked at the first two sentences of the lead. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE this does not "tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English". Virtually by definition this article fails this bar as it needs a footnote to explain a term. And I suspect that many readers will still be little the wiser, as who understands "affording latitude"? I know it's linked, but MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." At a guess there is more similar in the rest of the article. In haste, but I hope it helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Do you mind if I lift this comment and include it on the peer review? I think your comment is likely to be relevant to any reviewer. Thanks for your insight! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, of course not. It's Wikipedia, so you don't need to ask, but it is pleasant that you did. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]