Template:Did you know nominations/Customary (liturgy)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Customary (liturgy)

(

)

... that the precise details in medieval customaries have allowed historians to reconstruct since-lost buildings? Source: Driscoll, Michael S. (2006). "The Conversation of Nations". In Wainwright, Geoffrey; Westerfield Tucker, Karen B. (eds.). The Oxford History of Christian Worship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 204-205.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/George Charles Hoste
- Comment: ~~Currently a page move discussion going, so just make sure that Customary (liturgy) doesn't become a redirect.~~ A resolution was found!

5x expanded by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 18:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC).

Review

General eligibility:

New enough: - My calculation is that the prose expansion has just been less than 3x.
Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - I can't readily access the source but it seems plausible. But the relevant sentence isn't directly cited.
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Not sure why there's no picture being suggested but the immediate issue is the expansion ratio. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I'm not entirely clear how you came up with that incredibly off ratio; this tool suggests that the last version pre-expansion had about 380 characters of prose (which excludes "categories, references, lists, and tables" per the eligibility criteria) before deleting characters used for links. The same tool suggests that the current article has over 5000 characters of prose even after deleting any character used only to link to other articles. Also, I've never had to provide the sentence for an offline source–typically this is understood to be a AGF matter–but since you want it: "Often processions are described in wonderful detail, to such an extent that historians of architecture have been able to reconstruct abbatial churches..." (pg. 205). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As to the image issue, I opted against it solely on the basis that the sourcing I have failed to identify specific elements of specific churches that had been reconstructed. Additionally, none of the sources I have used identify a surviving manuscript with an image available and suitable for the main page. I would have liked to introduce one but the only customaries that have images available are rather lame text-only ones or have illustrations in parts of the manuscript considered to not be part of customary proper. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti:

I used WP:DYKCHECK which currently reports

Prose size (text only): 5112 characters (740 words) "readable prose size"

Article created by Oceanbourne on October 21, 2005

Article is classified as a stub

Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 39 edits ago on July 12, 2006

Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (5976 days)

But it is counting the pre-expansion version you point to as 2303 characters and so seems confused. Making a manual check by counting lines I reckon the expansion is 10x and so that's ok.

But we have some niggles. On neutrality, I wonder whether the article neglects the topic in other places such as other European countries. Not a big deal but that's why I didn't pass that aspect immediately.

We need a citation for the sentence which is the basis of the hook. Having a citation nearby is usually not considered enough.

As the article has a picture, I was wondering why we're not using it but it's your call.

So, we're getting there. Ok?

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: That's perfectly ok; a visual inspection is almost always better than a tool. As to neutrality, this topic is (almost) exclusively European. Glad you checked, but that's the sum of it. My including of "European Medieval period" per sourcing is meant to guide the reader to understand this. This is a subject that only comes up in the contexts of Western liturgies and, prior to the 20th century, the customary was wholly constrained to Europe. I would have liked to include more material on the Episcopal Church's use of customaries but the only work with non-primary source material on this is cited to its fullest extent already. Your citation request was initially unclear; it should be fixed now but I would ask you just double-check. I do appreciate your willingness to approve images, though, and there are too few like you who are willing to do that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have re-checked the various issues discussed above and they are now either resolved or are not show-stoppers. So, we're good to go. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)