Talk:The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator:

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.
 * ✅ Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * underscore[d] 'Anglicans do their theology - we need to say "underscore[d that]" for this sentence to work.
 * ✅ Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * wrote a foreword -> "wrote the foreword".
 * ✅ Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * ✅ Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * ✅ 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)


 * 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.

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * How do you feel about ? 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)