Talk:Free and Candid Disquisitions

Thinking about FAC
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"comprehending Dissenters"
It's not great for comprehension by the average reader (who is on a mobile device!) when you need a footnote in the lead to explain a word that is used in a way different from its plain meaning. I would rephrase. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've tried resolving that issue with . Because the majority of sources that address this subject don't even bother to define this technical term but use it as the near exclusive term to described the process–and because it shows up in the title of the Liturgy of Comprehension–I think it's necessary to use it in the article. I agree that it needs to be sufficiently defined for readers across any device. I elected to retain the note as a means of permitting anyone interested in understanding the subject further to see a more comprehensive definition (at least until I can put out an article on the subject of comprehension itself). Please let me know if that's enough of a fix or if you have other suggestions! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)