Wikipedia:Peer review/Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)/archive1

Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)
Now that the above article has finally made it to GA status (my first one), I'd like to have it peer reviewed with an eye to nominating it for FA status in a month or so. Please provide feedback and, if there are any other subject matter experts out there, please also be sure to comment on content. Thanks in advance. -- jackturner3 13:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Some notes: Intro: Structure: Lesser Festivals: Commemorations: Differences from other calendars: Historic liturgical calendars: In general: Congrats on the GA! I don't know a lot about the Lutheran liturgical calendar, so I can't judge whether it's comprehensive. If there are any similar FA articles on similar subjects, compare this one when working on it. Also, if you haven't already, check against Featured article criteria. Hope this helps. Cheers, Jude. 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the intro should be expanded (per WP:LS)
 * the information on the Sanctoral Cycle should be expanded.
 * you might want to mention the meanings of the words "temporal" and "sanctoral".
 * it says "Lesser Festivals have their own collects and a few... have their own proper." What are collects and propers? (there's a wikilink for collect in the next paragraph, but perhaps it should be explained in the article?)
 * the "color of the day" is mentioned. In many denominations, the colors change with the calendar; green for ordinary time, purple for Lent, etc. If this true of Lutheranism, then it should be mentioned in the article.
 * "...schedule of commemorations within the ELCA"- what is the ECLA?
 * don't use the word "clearly". If it's clear, then the reader should figure it out on their own; they don't need to be told.
 * Get rid of the red links in "The calendar in North America" section.
 * "...though like its close cousin.." which close cousin?
 * "..aside from an obviously heavy Lutheran emphasis." What is a heavy Lutheran influence? Also, "obviously", like "clearly"- if it's obvious, or clear, then you don't need to tell the reader that it is.
 * the wording is overly complicated: "the Lutheran calendar owes much to the proliferation of commemorations of the medieval calendars", for instance.
 * "growth of numerous (and sometimes, spurious) individuals" is a bit POV. Needs to be referenced, and probably re-worded. Also, change terms "prune" and "correct". The idea of "correcting growth" implies that those who didn't want to "prune" were incorrect in believing that.
 * Needs some copyediting for prose; FAC require "professional standard" prose.
 * There should be no space before reference numbers. ex: The Lutheran calendar operates in two cycles., not The Lutheran calendar operates in two cycles.
 * Sources are mostly inline cited, but all should be cited inline, and should be under References, rather than Notes.
 * Philip Pfatteicher and his books account for about 30 of your sources. Is he an authority on the subject, or are there other sources that could be used?