The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Pbritti ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments
This is a coherent and properly-cited book article with few issues to note. Accordingly my comments are mainly small items or suggestions. There is no QPQ in GA reviewing but I'd be delighted if you would take the time to review one of my nominations.
Each of the seven parts of the book covers a different subject:
- well, one would assume so really. Maybe reword.
underscore[d] 'Anglicans do their theology
- we need to say "underscore[d that]" for this sentence to work.
pre-Reformation... back to Augustine of Canterbury.
- it would be helpful here to give dates, or at least something that indicates coverage: how far back before the Reformation does the chapter go, so how many centuries are missing? You might say "it covers Bede but not Augustine", for instance, if that's what it does.- I did my best here, but the essay itself starts somewhere vaguely around the mid 11th century, but this reckoning depends on when you believe that certain liturgical books became discrete texts and could be interpreted as the early 12th century. Unfortunately, this is vagueness that is baked into both the review and the essay. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
spanning the 16th to the 19th century similar to Eamon Duffy's
- some punctuation seems to be missing here.
He also noted a typographical error in Marion Hatchett's chapter, where the placement of Prayer of Humble Access within the 1789 American prayer book is inaccurately described.
- this is a lot of coverage of one typo. Weil actually found the book admirable and successful in meeting its goals, so I'd say the paragraph is unduly negative and does not reflect Weil's review accurately.
- The article is missing some sort of statement of 'Context', saying that the Book of Common Prayer was written by Cranmer, etc, and was created in response to the creation of the Church of England, following the split with Roman Catholicism in the time of Henry VIII, etc. In other words we need a brief, cited, paragraph about what the prayer book is, why it came to exist, and why it's significant in the Anglican Communion. That should be rather straightforward to cite.
I modified the passage I used
Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian) to this effect. Helpfully, Ney actually directly referenced The Oxford Guide in the essay that cited the original version of that background section, so it was an easy adjustment. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Images
- Lead image has NFUR.
- Photograph is by nom, is relevant, and should be fine for book copyright.
Sources
- Hefling, one of the editors, wrote a guide to the BCP in 2021 (
ISBN
9780190689698). It might be worth briefly mentioning how his book differs from the Oxford team-effort.
- I have a copy of this book (it's a very good one for people who may have no prior familiarity with the subject) and have read several of the reviews available via the various Wikipedia Library resources. I think I could maybe add a quick aside, but not terribly much more. Glad you've done some research on your end! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 03:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is probably all that is required.
- Hmmm, unfortunately, the only review I've found of Hefling's 2021 book is this one by Sean Otto from Anglican and Episcopal History's June 2023 issue and it does not note Hefling's role in editing the Oxford guide. I'm inclined against adding it if the only review of the work didn't mention a connection (outside of who did the editing, the scope of Hefling's newer book has more in common with Geoffrey Cuming's A History of Anglican Liturgy than the Oxford guide). However, if you can think of a good way to insert mention without adding something that sounds promotional or like original research, I'll add it! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously, all you need to do is say that the editor, Hefling, has written a 2021 book[ref Helfing 2021] which provides a history of the BCP, not competing with the broad scope of the Oxford Guide. This could be a footnote actually.
- That is probably all that is required.
- I have a copy of this book (it's a very good one for people who may have no prior familiarity with the subject) and have read several of the reviews available via the various Wikipedia Library resources. I think I could maybe add a quick aside, but not terribly much more. Glad you've done some research on your end! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 03:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Gray 2007 (Church Times) mentions "a neat typographical device" which incorporates examples from the various revisions. It would be helpful to have a text box in the article giving one such example in a small amount of context from the Guide; this is certainly fair use.
- Maitland 2021 is basically a peripheral source for this article, but the brief use of it is acceptable.
- All the sources I was able to check (some are paywalled) are otherwise fine.
Summary
This is almost ready for GA status as soon as the comments above have been addressed. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 22:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome. I'm going to be frustratingly busy the next few days, but these issues/amplifications seem entirely doable. If I haven't gotten back with a few changes by the end of Friday UTC, feel welcome to ping me! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 03:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Expect completion within 24 hours! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 02:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Chiswick Chap: Hey! I've worked through your comments and implemented most of them. Thanks for your patience with me on the 2021 Hefling note–I was a bit anxious about adding it due to a prior experience with another editor and I agree with your opinion here. Let me know if anything else stands in the way of promotion! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Expect completion within 24 hours! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 02:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Pbritti We're almost there. The lead is a bit short; in particular, it says nothing about the reception, so it'd be helpful to have a brief summary of that up there.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 13:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Chiswick Chap: How do you feel about this addition? Maltby's contribution is the most consistently highlighted, so I decided to highlight it in the lead. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Pbritti We're almost there. The lead is a bit short; in particular, it says nothing about the reception, so it'd be helpful to have a brief summary of that up there.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 13:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Pbritti ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments
This is a coherent and properly-cited book article with few issues to note. Accordingly my comments are mainly small items or suggestions. There is no QPQ in GA reviewing but I'd be delighted if you would take the time to review one of my nominations.
Each of the seven parts of the book covers a different subject:
- well, one would assume so really. Maybe reword.
underscore[d] 'Anglicans do their theology
- we need to say "underscore[d that]" for this sentence to work.
pre-Reformation... back to Augustine of Canterbury.
- it would be helpful here to give dates, or at least something that indicates coverage: how far back before the Reformation does the chapter go, so how many centuries are missing? You might say "it covers Bede but not Augustine", for instance, if that's what it does.- I did my best here, but the essay itself starts somewhere vaguely around the mid 11th century, but this reckoning depends on when you believe that certain liturgical books became discrete texts and could be interpreted as the early 12th century. Unfortunately, this is vagueness that is baked into both the review and the essay. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
spanning the 16th to the 19th century similar to Eamon Duffy's
- some punctuation seems to be missing here.
He also noted a typographical error in Marion Hatchett's chapter, where the placement of Prayer of Humble Access within the 1789 American prayer book is inaccurately described.
- this is a lot of coverage of one typo. Weil actually found the book admirable and successful in meeting its goals, so I'd say the paragraph is unduly negative and does not reflect Weil's review accurately.
- The article is missing some sort of statement of 'Context', saying that the Book of Common Prayer was written by Cranmer, etc, and was created in response to the creation of the Church of England, following the split with Roman Catholicism in the time of Henry VIII, etc. In other words we need a brief, cited, paragraph about what the prayer book is, why it came to exist, and why it's significant in the Anglican Communion. That should be rather straightforward to cite.
- I modified the passage I used
Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian) to this effect. Helpfully, Ney actually directly referenced The Oxford Guide in the essay that cited the original version of that background section, so it was an easy adjustment. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Images
- Lead image has NFUR.
- Photograph is by nom, is relevant, and should be fine for book copyright.
Sources
- Hefling, one of the editors, wrote a guide to the BCP in 2021 (
ISBN
9780190689698). It might be worth briefly mentioning how his book differs from the Oxford team-effort.
- I have a copy of this book (it's a very good one for people who may have no prior familiarity with the subject) and have read several of the reviews available via the various Wikipedia Library resources. I think I could maybe add a quick aside, but not terribly much more. Glad you've done some research on your end! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 03:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is probably all that is required.
- Hmmm, unfortunately, the only review I've found of Hefling's 2021 book is this one by Sean Otto from Anglican and Episcopal History's June 2023 issue and it does not note Hefling's role in editing the Oxford guide. I'm inclined against adding it if the only review of the work didn't mention a connection (outside of who did the editing, the scope of Hefling's newer book has more in common with Geoffrey Cuming's A History of Anglican Liturgy than the Oxford guide). However, if you can think of a good way to insert mention without adding something that sounds promotional or like original research, I'll add it! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously, all you need to do is say that the editor, Hefling, has written a 2021 book[ref Helfing 2021] which provides a history of the BCP, not competing with the broad scope of the Oxford Guide. This could be a footnote actually.
- That is probably all that is required.
- I have a copy of this book (it's a very good one for people who may have no prior familiarity with the subject) and have read several of the reviews available via the various Wikipedia Library resources. I think I could maybe add a quick aside, but not terribly much more. Glad you've done some research on your end! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 03:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Gray 2007 (Church Times) mentions "a neat typographical device" which incorporates examples from the various revisions. It would be helpful to have a text box in the article giving one such example in a small amount of context from the Guide; this is certainly fair use.
- Maitland 2021 is basically a peripheral source for this article, but the brief use of it is acceptable.
- All the sources I was able to check (some are paywalled) are otherwise fine.
Summary
This is almost ready for GA status as soon as the comments above have been addressed. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 22:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome. I'm going to be frustratingly busy the next few days, but these issues/amplifications seem entirely doable. If I haven't gotten back with a few changes by the end of Friday UTC, feel welcome to ping me! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 03:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Expect completion within 24 hours! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 02:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Chiswick Chap: Hey! I've worked through your comments and implemented most of them. Thanks for your patience with me on the 2021 Hefling note–I was a bit anxious about adding it due to a prior experience with another editor and I agree with your opinion here. Let me know if anything else stands in the way of promotion! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Expect completion within 24 hours! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 02:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Pbritti We're almost there. The lead is a bit short; in particular, it says nothing about the reception, so it'd be helpful to have a brief summary of that up there.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 13:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Chiswick Chap: How do you feel about this addition? Maltby's contribution is the most consistently highlighted, so I decided to highlight it in the lead. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Pbritti We're almost there. The lead is a bit short; in particular, it says nothing about the reception, so it'd be helpful to have a brief summary of that up there.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 13:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.