Talk:The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 19:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that historian Alec Ryrie said that The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey convinced him that "there is such a thing as 'Anglicanism' after all"? Source: Ryrie, Alec (2010). "The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey". Reformation. 15: 223-224.

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 19:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • I will review this article in the coming week! WatkynBassett (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was created on 22 November 2023 and nominated on 23 November 2023 and is thus eligible.
  • The article has over 1,500 characters of readable prose.
  • The article is adequately sourced. I did a spot check, and the content was covered by the source.
  • The article is written in a neutral and non-promotional tone.
  • Earwig did not pick up anything suspicions.
  • QPQ provided.
  • Hook review: The hook is interesting; it has the right length, and it is quoted inline. I see only one issue: The partly quoted sentence reads like this in full: "What it does achieve—and this is not insignificant—is to use the Book(s) of Common Prayer to tell Anglicanism’s story in a reasonably coherent way: so much so that it almost makes me suspect, against my better judgement, that there is such a thing as 'Anglicanism' after all." Saying that Alec Ryrie is convinced of Anglicanism after his reading of the book thus seems to go too far. So, I would suggest that one uses a slightly rewritten hook a bit closer to the actual wording (e.g. ... that it made Ryrie "suspect [...] that there is such a thing".

Critical reception

There is a sentence "He also noted a typological error in Marion Hatchett's chapter..." [emphasis mine]. I suspect that it should be typographical rather than typological, but I can't be certain as I do not have access to the source. Can someone check this? -- Verbarson  talkedits 14:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbarson: Double-checked the source via Wikipedia Library. You are correct! Fix made. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti:Thank you.
Having followed your hint, I found the publication (I thought I had checked the Wikipedia Library, but I inadvertently only checked one of the many collections). Now I have read the review, I am not sure our article interprets the correction correctly. Both the original and suggested wording deal with something that comes after the Sanctus; it is the relationship to another part of the liturgy that is in question. However, I have read it several times, and even reformatted it in an editor, and I still don't quite understand what it is trying to say! -- Verbarson  talkedits 18:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbarson: There's something awful meta about me inserting typos that included misspelling "typographical" and inaccurately describing a typo. Your corrections are appreciated! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • wrote a foreword -> "wrote the foreword".
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
    • checkY Done. I tightened the note on the typo but, considering its significance and that I've heard it mentioned in other contexts, I've retained mention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • checkY 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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.
  • 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.
    • These are mostly how the formatting of book is done, as there are certainly "neat" textboxes which compare historic and modern texts. I'll attempt an inline explanation using the sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • Message if you need access to any, as all are accessible via either Wikipedia Library or hardcopies I have on hand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Expect completion within 24 hours! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_Oxford_Guide_to_the_Book_of_Common_Prayer:_A_Worldwide_Survey"