Talk:Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on June 19, 2007.

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 4, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass A couple of weird spots that break the flow, but overall very good.
2. Factually accurate?: Fail Not enough sources. Throughout the article, there are examples used to prove a point. All of these examples need a footnote. I would suggest using the books under "reference" or google. The area especially in need of attention is the "Differences from other calendars" section
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Excellent job.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Excellent work.
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass However, I am in doubt over the Lutheran pastor picture, as it has two tags: One stating that is is licenced under fair use, and the other that states it is licenced under GNU I would consider looking into this, though I do not think it is necessary.

Overall, it is an excellent article that just needs sources. That is why I am putting this article on hold. If this is fixed, then I will be more then happy to pass it. Just notify me on my talk page when you want me to re-review the article. Good luck!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

— Z1720 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that many new sources were added to the article, and that is fantastic. But I still do not feel that it is enough. However, I went through the article and added the {{{fact}}} tag to statements I believe are in immediate attention of sources. However, rather then build off the sources you already have, you might want to find other sources on the Internet from reliable sites or look in other books. One site I would recommend is http://www.elca.org/worship/ELW/content/index.html as they seem to have many peices of info there and it is the official site. (Also, the reference to this site in the "References" section is a broken link. I would suggest taking out the source all together if you decide to use this site as a footnote source. It is so close to being a GA, all it needs are a couple more sources.
Please note that I am a human being and I was probably not able to spot every place that needed a ref. So if you think another section needs a ref, then add it in. It is always better to have too many refs then not enough. Also, if you find new info in your travels, feel free to add it in. It is the only way to improve the article :) Z1720 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the number of citations that are being required is absurd. Adding in all the citations that have been requested since GA review began, I will more than have tripled the number of citations. As a college professor, I don't understand the absolute obsession many within the Wikipedia community have for requiring a reference for almost every single sentence (I have been told, previously, that for an article to be a GA, it does require every single sentence to be cited). I'm not saying that I will not do as requested because I've worked too hard on this article (and its previous incarnation) to see them not promoted, but I still don't think what is being asked for is required by the GA guidelines or is even particularly necessary. Just my two cents. -- jackturner3 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can't get the image licensing issues on Image:Elevation1.jpg cleared up, you may want to use Image:Pastordavid.jpg - a picture of a strikingly handsome young pastor preparing for worship, with the GNU license. ;) Pastordavid 20:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for this late reply. I was busy the last few days. As for your comments, according to Wikipedia is built on citations. Unfortunatly, there are many vandals on Wikipedia who will put in any information they want that will simply not be true. That is why this encyclopedia is built on citations.
According to WP:CITE "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." If I felt a place needed a citation because of the above reason, I added a citation tag.
If you do not agree with my review, I ask that you have the article reviewed on the Good Article Review page. That way you can get many more opinions on the rating of the article. Z1720 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I didn't say I wouldn't comply. What I said is that I feel the number of citations requested at this level is excessive. While I understand that Wikipedia is built upon accurate information which theoretically requires citations, I guess I simply do not read the requirement to cite "all material that is challanged or likely to be challanged" means that there should be nearly forty footnotes for a single, reletively short article. While the concern about placing material simply invented whole cloth is understandable, it is equally possible that a particularly creative individual might invent thier own citations, too. But, then again, GAs are only reviewed for for conformity to Wikipedia standars and not for content. It is also possibly a disbenifit to be a specialist in an area because what the specialist sees as commonly accepted a layman could see as questionable. Regardless, as stated, I will compy...I just think that what is being asked (and would likely be demanded by another reviewer) in terms of the sheer number of footnotes is excessive. -- jackturner3 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status: Promoted

For adding citations to the article, I hereby grant this article GA status. Congratulations! (See talk above for more details on the process of this article.) Z1720 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)