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.
Book of Common Prayer – the title of the article doesn't match the bold text, which should be amended.
Opted to just go without the bolding; this is a complex topic without a consistent name despite academic agreement on the topic's scope. ~ Pbritti (talk)
These Unitarian forms influenced other prayer book revision efforts – consider amending this to something like ‘These influenced other attempts to revise the prayer book of 1662’, to improve the prose.
The last sentence needs copy editing to improve the English.
Rewritten, so I'll need a recheck on that. ~ Pbritti (talk)
More comments to follow. AM
1 History
Link Samuel Clarke, and other people named within captions who have their own article; liturgy; manuscript; Poland (with the correct article, probably Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth),
and perhaps clarify for readers that at this time the country’s border were different to those of the modern Polish state.
become the Archbishop of Canterbury – ‘become archbishop’ sounds better imo.
I disagree, as specifying the Canterbury see is important to distinguish from the similarly prestigious office of the Archbishop of York. ~ Pbritti (talk)
Understood. AM
John Disney should be properly introduced, he was more than a brother-in-law.
Unitarianism developed in Europe, India, Jamaica, Japan, Canada, Nigeria, and South Africa. Is information available about any of these parts of the world?
Unfortunately, academic literature on the use of the Unitarian prayer book revisions in these regions appears nonexistent. The latest comprehensive bibliography on the subject (and I mean hilariously comprehensive) comes from 2006 and suggests no literature on BCP-specific Unitarian liturgies in these other regions. ~ Pbritti (talk)
This particular essay has some great content which I'll add as you seem to disagree with me about encyclopedic relevance; second opinion should take precedence on this. However, some of the essay's coverage seems to run counter to how Westerfield-Tucker, Japser, Peaston, Cuming and Scovel all engaged with Unitarian prayer books: Ledger-Lomas attends great detail to some privately printed revisions that were never used by a congregations that I might address in a generalist way in the influence section. I'll build upon that using both this essay and Peaston (trying to avoid his somewhat disparaging tone). This change will be the most time-intensive aspect of the review, so I apologize if it's one of the last things you get to review. More replies to come; your comments have been massively constructive and are deeply appreciated! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above, please let me know when you are done on this comment. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the paragraph preceding the subsection "Freeman and the King's Chapel". I also expanded coverage under "Contents". ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, it looks good. AM
1.1 Freeman and the King's Chapel
I would link 'decree', nor royal decree.
Imo this 850-word section (in particular, much of the first and fourth paragraphs) should be edited to remove the wealth of background information that is not directly related to the book. .
I've cut down that section by a bit but I'd like you to give it a peak to give me a sense of where and how much more I should pull out. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better imo. A few tweaks...
Samuel Clarke." - the full stop needs to be moved to the other side of the quote marks. Ditto prayers."
Link egalitarianism .
"minister" replace "priest" and "ordinance" replace "sacrament" - consider having the words in italics and without quotation marks.
For readers unfamiliar with the Book of Common Prayer, there needs to be something that explains in some detail its contents, style, and language.
Do you have a preference on length for this addition? My feeling is three sentence is plenty sufficient. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure until I see it. the BCP is a dense little book. Let's try three sentences. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's a paragraph that aims to fulfill that need. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks sorted. AM
2.1 Clarke
The buildings images do not help aid the understanding of the text in this subsection (see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). Being purely decorative, they should be removed.
N This part of the article appears to be a continuation of the History section, covering previously discussed historical periods...
... but I think that's OK. AM
Is the book used at all these days?
Is there a contemporary version for modern worshippers, or is the book now regarded as outdated (as is the case in the Church of England)?
I think both of the above comments are addressed in the final paragraph of the "Freeman and the King's Chapel liturgy" subsection of "History" and in the lead. I can reiterate this point under influence if you think its necessary, but their modern (post-1850) influence is not as evident within the sources I've seen. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. AM
6.1 Citations
You need to be consistent in your citation style—a number of the page numbers are in the Secondary sources section, and need to be moved here.
I think I caught every instance of that issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6.2 Primary sources
Primary sources are not used to cite the text.
7 Further reading
Lindsey, and the editions of the Prayer Book are primary sources, and so don’t belong within this section. I would add a new External links section for them.
(Not GA) It’s not usual to describe a book that is listed in a Further reading, e.g. A history of King's Chapel with coverage of the congregation's prayer book.
It may be that the list of issues in this review represents a good deal of work if they are all to be addressed, or alternatively you will be able to address them easily.
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 20 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. The article will need to be failed if the review cannot be completed in this time, please let me know what you think.. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning fixes; expect them completed by Wednesday UTC. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother, Amitchell125, but will you be available the next couple days if I have questions about some of your notes? Most are extremely straightforward (thank you for that!) but I see a couple comments I'll want to ask about when I have more time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to get back to you reasonably promptly at any time over the next week. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed every key consideration from the initial review but have noticed a few minor errors here and there and tidied them up. Hoping to have this finished by Friday! ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing the article now, great work! Amitchell125 (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2023 (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.
This part of the article appears to be a continuation of the History section, covering previously discussed historical periods...