Wikipedia:Peer review/Maryland Toleration Act/archive1

Maryland Toleration Act
This peer review discussion has been closed. I'm interested in developing this article further, and perhaps nominating it for FA at some point. Any and all suggestions are welcome, especially advice on references, MoS stuff I may have missed, and any potential areas for expansion.

Thanks, Geraldk (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Comments: More later. Steve Smith (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The references seem appropriate, though you need accessdate and publisher parameters for the Act (cite book doesn't strike me as the best template to use under the circumstances - maybe cite web?).
 * There are some potential dangling modifiers. An example: "...was a law passed on September 21, 1649, by the assembly of the Maryland colony that mandated religious toleration for trinitarian Christians."  In this case I'd suggest splitting into a couple of sentences: "...was a law mandating religious toleration for trinitarian Christians.  It was passed..."
 * The prose seems to have a mild case of thesaurusitis as well as a little bit of bloat. I'd be happy to undertake a copyedit if you'd like, though my copyedits tends to be fairly substantive, so I like to ask permission before I do them.
 * Yeah, that's pretty typical of my first stab at writing an article. I'd love a thorough copyedit if you're willing to do it. Will work on the citation and dangling modifiers. Thanks for the review! Geraldk (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You asked for it - please do take note of that edit's summary. More points:
 * "the first law requiring religious toleration" - In the thirteen colonies? The world?  Maryland?
 * clarified. Geraldk (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason that "toleration" is used instead of "tolerance" (in the article, I mean, not in the description of the act). They're synonymous, but "toleration" strikes me as a little obscure, maybe even archaic.
 * good point, fixed now. Geraldk (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "...the chronicler of their first settlement was a Catholic priest." This leaves me scratching my head. Is the chronicler of the first settlement just a guy who wrote the history of it?  If so, what's his relevance in this paragraph?
 * I just mentioned him to emphasize the Catholicism of the early settlers. Have reworded the sentence so it's hopefully a little less blunt. Geraldk (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "He also asked the Catholics to practice their faith within reason..." Were "within reason" Calvert's words? If so, they should be quoted; if not, a clearer wording might be chosen.
 * They weren't, they were mine, I've changed it to, 'as privately as possible', which is closer to what Brugger says. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I find myself curious about how protestants seized control of Maryland. Would a brief explanation of that - possibly less than a sentence - be out of this article's scope?
 * I've reworked this entire section to go into more detail. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The punishments included in the law for non-Christians were not idle threats." This statement is followed by an example of somebody being charged with an offense and then not being punished, which seems to weaken it.
 * clarified. Geraldk (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Given the persecution suffered by Catholics in England at the time, the act was a profound step towards religious tolerance." I'm concerned that this might be POV if not attributed.
 * changed to quote Brugger. Geraldk (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "despite its lack of a full guarantee of religious freedom or broad-based tolerance, the law it is significant as a first step in the establishment of religious freedom in the United States." This too.
 * changed to quote Finkelman. Geraldk (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty good, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bronze star in its future. As far as broadness goes, I don't see any glaring deficiencies. It would be nice to learn more about its application, as the only case we're given is one in which charges are dismissed. I'm also curious as to why the Act wasn't re-instated by Calvert in the 1700s, in view of the persecution of Catholics. But overall, this is an interesting, informative, and clear article. Steve Smith (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)