Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:41, 18 April 2008.

Review commentary
previous FAR (17:12, 17 January 2008)

I am nominating this article because it only has one inline citation and the lead is too short per WP:LEAD. There is no grandfather clause on Wikipedia and this article is not up to the current standards. --Maitch (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note Please provide where, in your opinion, are in-line citations required. Joelito (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said last time, these are valid points, and we must hope that one or more people with access to good libraries can provide the inline page refs from the books used. I suspect this will not be impossibly time-consuming, though obviously a great chore.  Some of the tone is rather essayish, using "we" etc. But as many said last time, in general this is a very fine article, to which only formalist objections have been raised, and as few changes as possible should be made.  Perhaps if a number of people could offer to look through one of the 6 sources each for page refs?  Do FAR rules allow a review to be launched a day after an old one closes? Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not usually Johnbod, and the nom is probably not wise imo, and will likely only lead to more drama and tension, will entrench positions further, and will not contribute to resolving the wider issue. Any discussion on grandfathering etc should be held in either the FA or FAR talk rooms and should be more general than one specific article. Ceoil (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The previous nomination (only a couple of days ago) was my first foray into FAR, and it was not pleasant. Assuming good faith, I will choose to believe Maitch was unaware of the previous FAR, and that this nomination was done in good faith. Even so, it should probably be speedied, not because it's invalid, but because discussion needs to happen on policy regarding this class of articles before we move forward with further such nominations. -- Bellwether B  C  13:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at WT:FA. Comments welcome there. Marskell (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to Marskell and Joel31 - you can leave this FAR alone if you don't want to handle it. I'll deal with it myself. Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Grandfathering or not, let's leave this FAR open. The lead is insufficient per Lead section and criterion 2(a), and lacks a reference for direct attributions such as "This part of the book is a pun on 'tub,' which Alexander Pope says was a common term for a pulpit" per criterion 1(c). Neither of these issues are being considered for grandfathering, so that discussion is not germane to these points.  Pagra shtak  16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will leave this open under the assumption that Raul will close it. As a precedent needs to be set, he can set it with this one, which will aid in future at FAR.


 * As a means of moving forward, why doesn't someone draft a lead and present it here? This is usually easier than it seems. Perhaps Johnbod, if he's familiar with the work. Bellwether has also suggested s/he knows the material. Marskell (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't even have the full text these days; I could only really do a precis of what's there. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A reference for Pope saying that the pulpit of a Dissenter was called a Tub is on page 88 of the 1729 edition of the Dunciad; "The pulpit of a Dissenter is usually called a Tub"; is the link to Google Book's version of it. Throwawayhack (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations I can add inline citations to this article based on the list of "References". It may take me a few weeks, but I am willing to do this because I think the article is of such high-quality. I would hate to see it de-featured. Awadewit | talk  17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Raul654 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My only question is whether this is really necessary. The article is fair and non-controversial right now, with few facts likely to be challenged. Would we be talking about a few (say, 5-7 or so) added strategically throughout the article, or a "bombing" of 20 citations that breaks up the wonderful prose that the article currently contains? -- Bellwether B  C  17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of sanity here, why don't the reviewers put little "fact" tags by the pieces of information they would like cited? Or, if that is distasteful (although technically easier), perhaps they could list all of the facts they could like cited here and I could slowly cross them off. I would just plead that, if I am going to do this (which is actually quite time-consuming to do well), that reviewers and editors don't squabble over which facts they want cited. Add the tags or prepare a list over the course of a few days or a week. Then I will get to work. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A previous reviewer made a list of 30+ things they considered to be in need of referencing. The reviewer became angry when people informed him/her that a vast majority of the list of needed citations, did not, in fact, need citations, and were obvious on their face. This is the problem here. The article is not loosely-written, with wild claims, or even claims that seem outside the bounds of modern scholarship, based upon the references. Could a few citations here or there help? Possibly. But a list such as the one provided by the previous nominator (not this one) would cause this wonderful article to become cluttered with unnecessary citations, in my view. -- Bellwether B  C  18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The minimum starting point is the direct quotes. I hesitate to fact tag beyond that, given Geogre's opinions on the subject. Awadewit, you're as talented anyone on literature pages, so you can probably judge for yourself what needs citation? I don't think this needs dozens. The prose might need some looking at. I don't like the first person plural in use, for instance. Marskell (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I typically cite a lot of things in Wikipedia articles I would never cite in my academic work because I think Wikipedia still needs to prove itself to the world. However, on A Tale of a Tub, I will not do that as I can sense it will become a problem. I will try to cite only what I would cite if I were writing an academic conference paper and wanted to have my citations on hand for questioners on the panel. I think other people can deal with the prose. Awadewit | talk  18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am just about done reading and adding citations. I have deliberately added very few. However, we will have no citations for the "Cultural setting" and "Historical background" sections. We need a couple of eighteenth-century history books. I can recommend some, but it would be best to know what Geogre was using when he wrote these sections. Awadewit | talk  01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned below, there are modern analyses made in "Cultural setting". The print revolution is compared to the Internet. Someone wrote that, but who? Another example: in the "Summary" section, it is said that the character Jack is named after John Calvin. Then there is a list of "modern descendants", some that have little to do with Calvin or English Dissenters. Mennonites are lineal descendants of Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz in Zürich, not Calvin. They are primarily of Continental origins, not English. Charismatics groups have a wide variety of beliefs, so the connection to English Dissenters is tenuous at best. I am curious about who wrote this statement. It is an example of modern analysis from a secondary source somewhere. I would like to look this up because I believe it is wrong. But then there is no cite. I know there are objections to adding citations to this article, but I agree with Awadewit. Wikipedia has to prove itself and without the citations, this statement looks like an example of a mistaken opinion or vandalism. We ought to treat all articles equally and not make an exception with this one. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to the first point, the answer is surely every commentator and academic who has written on either subject in the last few years. Must one cite cliches? Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we need to carefully sort out potentially problematic statements. For example, if Johnbod is saying that we don't need to cite cliches (if we should even be using cliches in our articles), I think he is mistaken in this case. I have frequently heard the eighteenth-century print explosion compared to the internet at conferences (but certainly not by every academic who writes on the topic). However, it is usually compared to the late eighteenth-century print explosion, which was much more dramatic than the one early in the century, and the comparison is always made with several caveats. If we are going to make that comparison here, which can be useful and instructive, we should be careful. I'm curious to know if the comparison has been made for the early part of the century and what caveats would be necessary. Awadewit | talk  14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt it depends what conferences one goes to etc. I'm more used the hearing the comparison in respect of the C15/16 myself, but that reflects my interests. I think caveats can rather be taken as read - clearly there are also enormous differences. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is just the problem right there. If the analogy is used for all of the print revolutions between 1500 and 1800, how useful is it? And I hardly think that the cavets can be "taken as read" if I hear academics explaining them to other academics. I don't think that we can assume our readers understand the differences between a print revolution they may never have heard of and the internet revolution. That is asking a lot. One of the reasons for not using cliches is because they are imprecise - I wonder if this cliche is too vague to communicate effectively what we intend. Awadewit | talk  15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There has to be a middle ground between a fully nuanced academic comparison and a cliche so vague it has no use to anyone. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not gotten around to sourcing the historical background, of which the religious statements RelHistBuff mentions are a part. RelHistBuff, if you know of a book that would detail this genealogy, that would be most helpful. Awadewit | talk  14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration until the Exclusion Crisis by Tim Harris might be a good source for the "Cultural setting" section. I haven't read this book in awhile, but I'm fairly confident that Harris deals with the themes discussed in that section. Dmoon1 (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I'll check it out. Awadewit | talk  16:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that book is really just about crowds. I'll try to dig up some general citations for these sections, but I might not get to it until after March 15. Awadewit | talk  05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I read the book for a seminar course on Early Modern Britain and couldn't exactly remember what it was about. Sorry it was no help. Dmoon1 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [copied from above] In the "Summary" section, it is said that the character Jack is named after John Calvin. Then there is a list of "modern descendants", some that have little to do with Calvin or English Dissenters. Mennonites are lineal descendants of Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz in Zürich, not Calvin. They are primarily of Continental origins, not English. Charismatics groups have a wide variety of beliefs, so the connection to English Dissenters is tenuous at best - from RelHistBuff - Reading Ehrenpreis, I came across the following sentences, whose content I think would work better in place of this the current material on dissetners: "If we consider the possibilities available to religious men, for instance, in 1696, we may say that those who rejected the Church of England could be either Roman Catholics or Dissenters; and if Dissenters, they were most likely to be Presbyterian. They might also belong to other Protestant sects: Independents (or Congregationalists), Baptists, Anabaptists, Quakers, and so forth; or they might doubt the divinity of Christ and be Socinians or deists....Among the sects which acted as dangerous, expanding rivals of the Established Church, the Presbyterians (who were usually the ones intended by 'nonconformists' or 'dissenters') were easily the strongest." (1:191) Awadewit | talk  21:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite why "modern descendents" are needed is unclear. One could just remove the two RHB rightly objects to, perhaps adding Congregationalists instead (English independent Calvinists), or add more from Ehrenpreis or elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been changed. Awadewit | talk  05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to tell the author this has restarted? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, has anyone bothered to tell the talk page? It doesn't look like it.  Pagra shtak  17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep! Keep! By Any and all means Keep! It is misguided meddling to judge past FAs by current standards, unless their quality has drastically and noticably declined. This is clearly not the case here. It would be a travesty and injustice to see yet another of Wiki's finest sacrificed on the pedantic altar of ¡¡¡M0aR N0tZ0RZ!!!. If it is too early to vote, then please move my comments to the appropriate section, for my opinion will remain unchanged.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am uncomfortable with the use of the first person in the article. Example: "The change in British society brought about by the print revolution was roughly analogous to our own experiences with the Internet." It makes me wonder who made the statement. If I read that in a book, I know who the author is. But who wrote that in Wikipedia? The "Cultural setting" section, while it is nice to read, appears more like an personal essay rather than encyclopedia article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll say it again - shouldn't someone tell user:geogre this has been restarted? Raul? Maitch? If nothing else it's bad manners.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "our own experiences" zapped, and FAR template added to the talk. I suspect Geogre is well aware the FAR was restarted, to template him would be unfair. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification of User:Geogre I have notified the primary author of this article that it is standing for review again. It's a bit disconcerting that no one felt it necessary to notify him at his talkpage. -- Bellwether B  C  01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and LEAD (2a).

Comment: I waited a while to move this. Awadewit suggested "I will try to cite only what I would cite if I were writing an academic conference paper." Has that been done? The lead still needs more. Raul said he would close this, so the final decision can be his. Marskell (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added to the lead; about doubled it - long enough now without getting too involved I think. I think the referencing is now ok too. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to have one or two references for the general history sections, but those will take more time to find. However, I think that all of the major claims in the article now have citations. If anyone could help out with the general history references, I would really appreciate it. I am quite busy with my own academic work and I don't think I will be able to do much on this front until after March 15. Awadewit | talk  01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think we probably have articles (referenced let's hope) on all that, and a bit more linking to full articles might be better than citations here. Most of the points have many whole books on them - a reference to a single page somewhere is not ideal. 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of whole books. Finding the right book is difficult, though. Awadewit | talk  03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done what I can regarding the notes for the moment. Awadewit (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the 'likely to be challenged' criteria is met now, and the lead is sufficient, and otherwise the article is grand. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove Still a lot of unreferenced paragraphs with POV/OR. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Examples please! Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "In any case, the digressions are each readerly tests; each tests whether or not the reader is intelligent and skeptical enough to detect nonsense. Some, such as the discussion of ears or of wisdom being like a nut, a cream sherry, a cackling hen, etc., are outlandish and require a militantly aware and thoughtful reader. Each is a trick, and together they train the reader to sniff out bunk and to reject the unacceptable."
 * "If he was not a particular fan of the aristocracy, he was a sincere opponent of democracy (which was often viewed then as the sort of "mob rule" that led to the worst abuses of the English Interregnum.) The cultural stakes were high, and Swift's satire was intended to provide a genuine service by painting the portrait of conspiracy minded and injudicious writers."
 * "If Swift hoped that the Tale of a Tub would win him a living, he was disappointed. Swift himself believed that the book cost him any chance of high position within the church. It is most likely, though, that Swift was not seeking a clerical position with the Tale. Instead, it was probably meant to establish him as a literary and political figure and to strike out a set of positions that would win the notice of influential men. This it did."
 * "It is most consistent in attacking misreading of all sorts. Both in the narrative sections and the digressions, the single human flaw that underlies all the follies Swift attacks is over-figurative and over-literal reading, both of the Bible and of poetry and political prose. The narrator is seeking hidden knowledge, mechanical operations of things spiritual, spiritual qualities to things physical, and alternate readings of everything."
 * "As has recently been argued by Michael McKeon, Swift might best be described as a severe skeptic, rather than a Whig, Tory, empiricist, or religious writer. He supported the Classics in the Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns, and he supported the established church and the aristocracy, because he felt the alternatives were worse. He argued elsewhere that there is nothing inherently virtuous about a noble birth, but its advantages of wealth and education made the aristocrat a better ruler than the equally virtuous but unprivileged commoner. A Tale of a Tub is a perfect example of Swift's devastating intellect at work. By its end, little seems worth believing in."
 * "Although officially the king was supreme, there could be no doubt that the Commons had picked the king and could pick another instead. Also, although there was now a law demanding that all swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the church, it became less and less clear why the nation was to be so intolerant."
 * "The Tale was immediately popular and controversial. Consequently, there were rumors of various people as the author of the work — Jonathan Swift then being not largely known except for his work in the House of Lords for the passage of the First Fruits and Fifths bill for tithing. Some people thought that William Temple wrote it. Francis Atterbury said people at Oxford thought it had been written by Edmund Smith and John Philips, though he thought it was by Jonathan Swift. Some people thought it belonged to Lord Somers."
 * "Stylistically and in sentiment, the Tale is undeniably Jonathan's. Most important in this regard is the narrative pose and the creation of narrative parody. (Previously, parody had referred only to poetic compositions.) The dramatic pretense of writing as a character is in keeping with Jonathan Swift's lifelong practice. Furthermore, Thomas Swift has left few literary remains."
 * --Kaypoh (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is OR or POV about: "The Tale was immediately popular and controversial. Consequently, there were rumors of various people as the author of the work — Jonathan Swift then being not largely known except for his work in the House of Lords for the passage of the First Fruits and Fifths bill for tithing. Some people thought that William Temple wrote it. Francis Atterbury said people at Oxford thought it had been written by Edmund Smith and John Philips, though he thought it was by Jonathan Swift. Some people thought it belonged to Lord Somers." - unless you are implying the whole thing has been invented? Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Popular" and "controversial" are peacock terms. The paragraphs has a few opinions about who wrote A Tale of a Tub. The opinions must have references and no weasel words like "rumours" and "some people thought". --Kaypoh (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second. Are you challanging the fact that the book was either popular or controversial? This is evident from even a basic scan of the sources. "some people thought" is more problematic; working. Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Kaypoh needs to think about his use of terms. Both "popular" and "controversial" are (or can be) objective and indeed necessary terms to use about a published work. Equally rumour and "some people thought" are not weasel words but reports of historic facts; "some modern scholars think" is weasel words if not referenced, but references to C18th gossip are not, though referencing is needed. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My openion is that the remaining challanges lack substance, and this should be closed. Ceoil (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think both lead and referencing should ideally be further improved, now that we have started this process. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can do more at this point. It is actually very difficult to find specific references for sentences in an article. Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments: In addition to the problems I mentioned during the FAR phase, there are prose, punctuation, spelling, and grammar problems throughout the article. Some examples: I found these only by lightly scanning a few paragraphs. This article needs a serious copy-edit. All my comments refer to violations of criterion 1a which is why I voted to remove. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove: I had a comment during the FAR phase. The use of the first person in my opinion is not what I would expect in an encyclopedia. The "Cultural setting" section reads more like a personal essay. I have no idea where the information came from. The comparisons with the modern age makes me extremely uncomfortable and even if it can be sourced somewhere, it gives the appearance of WP:OR. There was also a mention of whether clichés should be included in our articles. This article is not an example of our best. Add to that the inadequate lead section and the poor referencing throughout the article, as a neutral reader, this article would not make me confident about Wikipedia. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold please Can I have a week to have a stab at refing the remaining sections. No promises, but I'll try. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "the English had suffered a Civil War" sentence should be restructured. The clauses associated to the conjunction are not equal items. Comma after "under the Puritan" needed. A "the" is needed before Interregnum.
 * Comma needed after "married to a Roman Catholic"
 * "sanguinity" has different meanings in my dictionary, but not the meaning of "blood line"
 * "Also, although there was" does not need "Also".
 * Comma before "by John Nutt" is not needed.
 * Why is the "Dryden himself" sentence in a parenthetical element? Others similiar "Swift's publisher for the" and "Previously, parody had".
 * It's a lot quicker to add/remove these commas yourself, and add the "the"s, than tell us all about it, especially as you will be aware the main editor on the article is not participating here. Johnbod (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a lot more that has to be done. I am not saying that these are the only problems, otherwise I would have done it myself. I give these as examples to a much deeper problem in order to show the non-compliance with 1a. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * RelHistBuff, I've ironed out these as best I can, and other ocurrances of similar instances that I found. Would appreciate if rather than passivly vote remove, you could point or fix similar instances. Remove is after all a fairly active position to take, given that there are willing editors offering to respond. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed a few parentheticals and one first person use and I added a comment. But really this is only window-dressing. As I said, there are deep problems (prose, referencing, lead). Without the main author who has Ehrenpreis and other sources in front of him and is actively participating as what normally happens in the FAC process, this really cannot be brought to standard. Someone else will need to adopt the article, work on it, peer review it, and bring it back to FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep featured. A very high quality article; the remaining concerns above are not material to the reader's experience. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove lack of inline citations for most things, especially interpretative, are not part of FA and need to be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I'm not voting, but these comments can be taken as a sort of "peer review".
 * In the lead the three main branches should be defined, as this can be misread as Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox.
 * "Alexander Pope says..." Where? I don't see Pope listed anywhere as a reference.
 * "Swift also connects to "Jack of Leyden"" Where does Swift connect this, in the Tale itself or elsewhere? Who is Jack of Leyden anyway? I don't see any explanation anywhere.
 * What's a layer cake? Rather an odd comparison, kind of digressing (!).
 * "Many critics have followed...Ehrenpreis" Hmmn. This sentence is referenced to Ehrenpreis, so he can't be a reference to his own importance. The sentence should be reversed, with the "many critics" coming after the Ehrenpreis reference. Also, it strikes me as unlikely that Ehrenpreis was the first to mention this, but he might have been, in which case it might be better to say, "Many critics, including Irvin Ehrenpreis,..." but then later on I see it says "Prior to Ehrenpreis, some critics had argued..." The sentence starting "Many critics have followed..." could be moved down adjacent to the rest of the discussion on this aspect.
 * "20th-century reader". Why 20th-century? What was peculiar about the readers of the previous century?
 * "Given the evidence of A. C. Elias..." What evidence? I don't see any.
 * "It became possible for anyone to spend a small amount of money and have his or her opinions published as a broadsheet. It also became possible for nearly anyone to gain access to the latest discoveries in science, literature, and political theory, as..." I think the poor and illiterate would disagree. Perhaps: "For a small amount of money anyone's opinions could be published as a broadsheet. Access to the latest discoveries in science, literature, and political theory was easier, as..."
 * "...did not gibe" I don't think this is the right verb. "gibe" means "scoff" or "sneer" to me, not "compare favourably".
 * "There is no normative value in Rome, no lost English glen, no hearth ember to be invoked against the hubris of modern scientism." Huh?
 * Twice in the article it says something like "see below for further discussion", such statements indicate problems with the structure of the article.
 * "A Tale of a Tub has often been offered up as evidence of Swift's misanthropy." Duplicated in a preceding section.
 * "it was alleged that James was Roman Catholic" can this be re-phrased to avoid "alleged"?
 * "Anne was rumored to be immoderately stupid" What is "immoderate" stupidity? Suggest rephrasing to "Anne was perceived as weak"
 * "Samuel Johnson claimed..." Where? I don't see Johnson listed in the references.
 * "Jonathan responded to this allegation by saying that Thomas had no hand in anything but the smallest of passages, and he would welcome hearing Thomas 'explain' the work, if he had written it." Perhaps this should be referenced. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that most of these problems result from a lack of inline citations, and that the article wouldn't need to be up for FA review if every line (or most lines) had references. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Raul had said he would deal with this one but did not respond when I pinged him about it. The majority here are in favour of removal, and DrK, while not actually voting, presents a comprehensive list of problems with the article. The comment on three branches of Christianity is astute: even in the body, where the brothers are identified, the article doesn't explain that these are not the three primary branches, in general. The 20th century comments and the internet comparison are highly assumptive (as are the comments on "tolerance" and modern Great Britain). I don't have a problem with the prose, on the whole, but patches of this article seem clearly indicative of off-the-top-of-the-head original research. Not uninformed OR, but OR nonetheless. The Pope reference is another good example: we've extended some leeway on these older lit FAs on the assumption that the references, if not an inline citation, would direct a reader to the appropriate spot—but here we're quoting Pope who is not even in the references. These are just examples—the problem seems pervasive.


 * Thus I am removing. Marskell (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.