Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:02, 30 January 2008.

[edit] Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)

Check external links

Self-Nom - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the Featured Article Criteria. jackturner3 (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Title is misleading, only deals with North American Lutheranism. Why is "color" capitailsed in a heading? Jimfbleak (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed the second comment by chaing the capitalization to conform to sentence case. In the second instance, I have added large sections regarding the calendars during the Lutheran reformation in Germany and Sweden, as well as in the modern period. I have also re-arranged the article to make it "flow" better. -- jackturner3 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment web references need improving, e.g. any authors, dates, publisher, accessdates. Peanut4 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently addressing this by including the web pages in the bibliography, where it will have all that inforamtion. -- jackturner3 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - while there is much material here and it is obvious a lot of work and effort have gone into this, it does not meet Featured Article criteria in my opinion. Some specifics (not a comprehensive list) follow:

• It is not Comprehensive (Criteria 1b) - given the title, this article should be about all Lutheran liturgical calendars, but the focus is on North American Lutheranism (and even there it dismisses the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod with one sentence: The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has [a] different, somewhat minimized calendar when compared the LCMS and especially the ELCA.[56]) and a convoluted note (The majority of WELS congregations utilize The Service Book and Hymnal or Christian Worship: A Lutheran Hymnal, neither of which have extensive calendars of commemorations in them. The LCMS prayerbook[,] Lutheran Worship, is available through the official WELS publisher, Northwestern Publishing House through their website, which would obviously provide congregations utilizing that resource a larger calendar to select from. Unlike the ELCA and the LCMS, the WELS does not maintain an official Sanctoral Cycle, but they do have congregational resources available for the full Temporal Cycle on their official website). This sentence and the note are also examples of less than well written prose (1a). I show my suggested [additions] and deletions.

I have implemented the suggestions you have made. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I added an "a" and a comma ;-) to the sentences in question. The article is still of two minds - the title seems to indicate a general look at all Lutheran liturgical calendars, while the modern focus is much more narrow (nothing outside of North America and Europe that I could find). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• It does not seem to be neutral (1d) - I see this focus on North America as an NPOV issue. Within North America, the focus is heavily on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). For example, nine of the eleven references are published by the ELCA and the other two are LCMS hymnals (so all the commentaries cited are published by the ELCA). Canada is mentioned twice in the lead, but never again in the article - not even in the subsection The calendar in North America.

I would ask that you read the article again. There is more emphasis on the calendar at the Reformation as well as on the calendar in the modern period in places outside North America. So, a significant portion of the article doesn’t even concern North America at all. As for not mentioning Canada again after the introduction, you will notice that I never say “United States” once in the article. However, if the concern is that the ELCIC isn’t mentioned subsequently, I can certainly couple ELCA and ELCIC in every instance, along with LCMS and LC-C. I have not done so to this point because I thought it would be understood from the lead section that both pairs of churches use the same service books and therefore there is no difference between the two. Perhaps I was mistaken on that point. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the history discusses the calendar in Europe (although given this is Lutheranism, it would be hard not to ;-) ). However the modern calendar, which is the focus of the article, pays relatively little explicit attention to Europe. In The calendar in Europe (why not In Europe or even just Europe?) there are two sentences on modern practice: In the twentieth century, Lutherans in Europe came under the influence of the Liturgical Movement and many Lutheran churches adopted new calendars and rubrics similar to the Roman Calendar as revised by Vatican II. .[49] The Swedish Church also experienced a similar reform of its liturgy can calendar during this same period. Compare this to two sentences just on Dec. 13 and St. Lucia in The calendar in North America (again, why not a shorter header name here?). We still do not know if modern Swedish Lutherans observe St. Lucia's day, but we know all about ELCA and LCMS practice. Do you see the difference in emphasis? That is the problem I am trying to make you see. Oh, I know! Look at Liturgical Colours as a Lutheran - it gives lots of details on Roman Catholic practices (three lists) and Anglican practices (one BIG list) and a short paragraph on the ELCA in with all the Protestants lumped together. As to the Canadian issue, ELCA is only in the US, right? So even the US is not explicitly mentioned, every time ELCA is, I think US. I don't think you have to couple ELCIC and LC-C at every mention, but one or two per section would be nice. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• The lead does not begin to meet 2a: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections. My rule of thumb is that every section and subsection should be mentioned in some way in the lead (even if it is just a phrase or a word). Three of the sections are on History, Liturgical colors, and Saints - none of these are in the lead.

I will attempt to rewrite the lead to more adequately encompass these issues. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From experience, (re)writing the lead is usually best done at the end (see what is in the final version of the article, then summarize it). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• It fails 2b - according the WP:MOS, section and subsection headings should not repeat the article title or substantial parts of it. This has, as one example, History of the Lutheran liturgical calendar and repeats "calendar" or "liturgical calendar" four more times (although Differences from other calendars is hard to formulate without using "calendar" and so is probably OK).

This has been corrected. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I still have a problem with "Saints" in the liturgical calendar. Why not just "Saints" or perhaps Commemeoration of "Saints"? I would also be consistent on geographical headers in the Historical development section - I like the "In X" headers better than the "The calendar in X" headers. We already know it is about the calendar, no need to repeat it needlessly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• It fails 2c - "consistently formatted inline citations" - current notes 4 and 5 are "Phillip Pfatteicher, Lutheran Book of Worship: Manual on the Liturgy, p. 22." and "Pfatteicher, Lutheran Book of Worship: Manual on the Liturgy, p. 22." As noted, internet sources do not include date accessed or other standard information (publisher and author if known).

I was unaware that his was “inconsistent.” Perhaps I’m simply more used to academic writing, but it is customary to not mention the first name of a cited author after the first instance; at least, that is how I was taught in grad school and what I absorbed from reading texts in this field. If it is a major issue, and the first name absolutely ‘’must’’ be mentioned without fail to pass FAR, then I will see to it that it is done, but if you could provide some sort of reference stating that references should be copied precisely the same throughout an article, I would be most grateful. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But you don't even do that - the first three cites give his full name (Phillip Pfatteicher), then it switches to just his last name. I really don't mind whatever style you use as long as it is consistent and provides all the information needed to look up the material to check it / read more. The ref name = trick is detailed at Wikipedia:Footnotes Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestions - it is often possible to polish an article in FAC, but this has so many issues, I doubt that is possible here. I would either narrow the title to focus on the ELCA or try to widen the scope of the article to fit the title. I would see if you can get some more images - how about some pictures of clerical vestments or altar paraments for the liturgical colors section? I would also use the "ref name" system (ask if you do not know how to do this) so there are not nine (or more) separate cites to "Pfatteicher, Lutheran Book of Worship: Manual on the Liturgy, p. 22.". Other refs could be cited this way too. Not a bad article, just no where near FA status at this time. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason that there are so few images is because, for one thing, the article was recently (yesterday) include a significant amount of new material (if you check the history, you will see that yesterday I increased the size by nearly 10K). As a result, I have not had an opportunity to go looking for new images. And, as to the images you suggested, I don’t know that I’ll even be able to find those already uploaded to wikipedia. If you have any leads on the subject let me know, but I searched for just these types of images when I first wrote the article and came up only with the one you see, and that was thanks to a referral from a member of Wikiproject:Lutheranism. I will consider using the ref name system, as suggested. However, I also don’t understand, specifically, why the article is “nowhere near” FA status when most of your objections are already corrected or can be done in relatively short order. Perhaps you could explain that in a little more detail? -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant can you or someone who has a digital camera go to a Lutheran church and take pictures of paraments and perhaps vestments? Get them out of the sacristy if need be, hang them up and take them down again. I see Awadewit has graciously offered to try and do something similar below. I looked on Flickr but there were no free paraments photos (forgot to check vestments). I have some more detailed suggestions, but don't have a lot of time now to add them. I will say that a Featured Article should tell a story and clearly explain the subject. I know some things about liturgical calendars and Lutherans already (and I learned more from the article, thank you!) but to me it really doesn't tell a clear story yet. It may be it can be fixed in FAC or it may take longer - I am willing to change my oppose if the changes merit, but I think that a major overhaul of the article is needed and am not sure it can be done on the fly, as it were. I am trying to help - there is a lot that is good here, but it has not yet cme together in a cohesive whole. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

More suggestions These are ideas to try and help - not a requirement. In general I think an overview would help introduce the subject. I think that it is good to go from the general to the specific, and to stress things that are common to many denominations before things that are rare or unique. If you can give an idea of the basics and why they are done first, I think that will help with the specifics later.

I think the article should start (after the lead) with an introduction to the idea of the liturgical calendar, specifically the seasons. I would start with Advent and explain it is a prepatory season, then go on to Christmas, then Epiphany, then on to Lent, then Holy Week, Easter, Pentecost, then the Sundays after Pentecost, and finally Christ the King. I would explain how this models the life of Christ and the church (birth, life, passion, death, resurrection, the church, return). I would then explain how this basic seasonal pattern varies depending on Easter and how this is common to pretty much any church that uses a liturgical calendar. From here there are several ways to go, perhaps into the idea of the two cycles, then more detail on the Festivals, on to Lesser Festivals, etc? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm afraid that I have to agree with the previous reviewer. I think that this article has a lot of potential, but some pretty substantial polishing needs to be done.

• The first paragraph of the lead is too detailed - find some way to summarize that information or allude to it, such as "The Lutheran liturgical calendar is laid out in a variety of worship materials" - or something like that.

Sure, I’m rewriting it anyway -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is not a summary of the article per WP:LEAD - large swaths of the article are not mentioned. Give us a hint of the excitement to come! The colors! The saints!

See above -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• The "Temporal Cycle" and "Sanctoral Cycle" need to be more clearly defined - the definitions offered at the end of the first paragraph of "Structure" would better help the reader at the beginning of the paragraph.

Maybe because I’m closer to the article, I don’t get what’s unclear about it. Please describe what you are talking about. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, move the definitions - "The Sanctoral Cycle is the fixed daily commemorations of individuals and events not related to the Temporal Cycle of Sundays, Festivals, and Seasons. [6] It is the Sanctoral Cycle which is sometimes thought of as being the “Calendar of Saints” of a Church" - to the beginning of the paragraph and integrate them with the early sentences about festivals, etc. These sentences help the reader better understand the difference between the two cycles. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• However, the Lutheran Book of Worship does permit the celebration of a Lesser Festival on Sundays where the normal color of the day would be green (that is, seasons after Epiphany or after Pentecost) or on the Sundays in Christmas. - This sentence arrives before the reader knows anything about the colors used for the vestments. Watch for this kind of "introduction" before the reader has been introduced.

OK, good point. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it is necessary to list the "white" festivals. If anything, put these in a footnote. Perhaps you could make an entirely separate page, listing all of the festivals by color. That would make a lovely featured list.

Good, you can vote in favor of Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) the next time I bring it up for featured list status :) This article was actually the result of splitting the narrative section (which is more or less what you see today in the present article) and the list section of the original Calendar of Saints article. However, I can put the “white days” among the festivals in a footnote if that is more appropriate. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Names of colors should not be capitalized in the "Liturgical colors" section.

Done -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could there be more images, of vestments, perhaps? I might be able to help out with this, but it would take me some weeks. (My dad is a Lutheran pastor.)

That would be awesome. At present, the article is lacking images because I recently expanded the article significantly (that is, I added about 10K of material on yesterday) and so haven’t had a chance to seek out additional images yet. -- jackturner3 (talk)

As I said, this could take me awhile, but I promise to work on getting them. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• The page seems to be about the American Lutheran Liturgical calendar - is that correct? If so, it should be renamed. Or, if the editors want it to be about the entire world, it needs to be dramatically expanded.

What do you think needs to be expanded? I ask specifically because there’s a lot of information the calendars during the reformation and more information on the calendars in Europe than there was even a few days ago. I think that gives it a sufficiently broad scope without becoming too weighed down. And, as I indicate, much of what take place in Europe hasn’t changed much since the Reformation. Furthermore, I feel that if the article is change to focus solely on the ELCA or even on North America that some will feel the article is thus too focused to be an FA, so I’m kind of feeling like I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t. And, just so you know, I'm the only one working on this article, aside from a few individuals who have made some minor edits along the way. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is divided into two parts, essentially, what Lutherans today use and the historical liturgical calendar. The "History" section does indeed cover most of the Lutheran world, but the the "Lutherans today" section - the first half of the article - doesn't do that. What do Swedish Lutherans today do, for example? I understand that you feel overwhelmed - I have been the near-sole author on a number of large articles myself - it is a lot of work. However, sometimes that just means that it takes more time to do them than if you had a choir of helpers. :) Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please add appropriate links in the "History" section - many names, places, and things need to be linked for the uninformed reader.

Done and done. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why is the Wisconsin Synod mentioned so little? While it is smaller than the ELCA and LCMS, it deserves space here.

In part, because the WELS doesn’t have much of a calendar to speak of. I did make some mention of that fact and attempt to explain how there could be variation within congregations in note 56. If there is something specific you think should be there, please let me know and I will include and do my best to source it. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But what is on their minimal calendar? We need to describe it a bit more, I think. I would put the information from note 56 into the article itself. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are there differences between the LCA, ALC, and the AELC (before they merged into the ELCA) that need to be mentioned in the history section?

Only based on the service book they were using, and the differences in service books are covered in the article. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• The "Differences from other calendars" section is repetitive - it has good information, but it repeats ideas that have already been mentioned in the article. Some cutting is in order here.

I will see what I can do. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest reversing the order of the paragraphs in the "Saints" section - explain the position of saints in Lutheranism and then explain their place on the calendar - again, it helps the uninformed reader. (There is also some repetition here - judicious cutting can happen).

Again, I will see what I can do. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• While the sources for this article seem like a good beginning, are there any non-Lutheran sources that you can turn to? That way any POV that may exist in the sources could be balanced out by more academic sources.

Senn’s book is an “academic” monograph, published by a reputable academic publisher in the field of religion; I wouldn’t recommend it to my students if it were not. Pfatteicher’s books are a mix of academic and practical, but always scholarly. Any charge of POV would be, in my opinion, would be an instance of coincidence that both happen to be Lutheran rather than any actual bias. Problematically, the primary academic authorities on Lutheran liturgy just happen to be Lutheran, as might well be expected and thus should not give any reason for concern. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is my concern - a Lutheran POV. Are there any other sources on this topic at all? Also, while I'm thinking about it, haven't there been controversies over some of these calendars and over the colors? I have a vague memory of that. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is a little wordiness in the prose - a few unnecessary phrases - do you know a good copy editor who could go through the article?

I did submit the article for peer review before I submitted it to FAR, but no, I don’t know a copy editor. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, once all of the major revisions have been done, I suppose I can do that myself, then. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Website references are not formatted correctly in the notes (see WP:CITE).

I am aware of this, and I am diligently working on it… -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is a red link in the "References" - take that out or create a stub.

Also done… -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• The notes are not formatted consistently - for example, some use "p" and some do not; some have the author's first and last name, etc. Choose a style and stick with it.

In reference to author first/last name or last name only, I’m using an academic style. I was unaware that this was…inappropriate for Wikipedia I don't think I've noticed anything in WP:Cite about it. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an academic, too, and I don't know of any style that looks like this. Most styles that introduce a citation first, introduce the entire citation first, and then subsequently refer to the last name of the author and the page number (title, if need be) (see, for example, Anna Laetitia Barbauld). What style is this? If I could see a website outlining the rules, I would be reassured. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is what I'm doing, sort of. The convention I'm aware of is that the entire citiation does not need to be referenced complelty in the first note if it is listed in a bibliography. So, that is the style I'm following. I've always been lead to believe that it is Chicago, but it could be my first undergrad professor taught me a bad habit years ago (although in scholarly monographs, I see this same style where footnotes are used, though not in scholarly journals which only rarely have a seperate bibliography). -- jackturner3 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the 15th edition right now and I don't see that style. If a bibliography is included (as it is here), we are supposed to use one of the shortened forms listed in sections 16.41-16.45. I don't see your style listed there. In fact, 16.44 says only the last name of the author is needed. Awadewit | talk 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good article, I just don't think that it meets the featured article criteria yet. Awadewit | talk 17:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Jack, you have done some great work on this article. Is there a reason that it reflects the LBW usage instead on Evangelical Lutheran Worship - to go along with the update to the LSB for the LCMS? I think some good concerns have beenraised above - I would like to see a broader range of works used for the citations. I think it is also, in part, a little provincial, in that it focuses almost exclusively on North American usage. I realize that you have already split this once. Perhaps making this a general article about the usuage of liturgical calendars in Lutheranism, then moving to more specific ELCA and LCMS articles would allow you to put in the detail and specificity and take some of the mud out of the waters? Pastordavid (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.