Talk:Book of Common Prayer (1845 illuminated version)

A fact from Book of Common Prayer (1845 illuminated version) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 July 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Owen Jones's elaborately ornamented Book of Common Prayer "pointed to the direction that books in general were to follow in the Victorian Age"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1845 illuminated version).

Wikipedia

Christianity: Texts / Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Quote

Hey @Uriel1022: I really like this fun little article you whipped up and think it dovetails nicely into some of the other prayer book pages we've been churning out recently. My only concern is that you present a very modified quote from the (super handy) Oxford Guide with significant additions. I would encourage maybe altering the quote to be more paraphrasing. Otherwise, great work and I hope you submit this as a DYK. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad you enjoyed reading this little one. I did a little alteration to the quote per your suggestion, paraphrasing can sometimes still be a bit of a challenge as not being a native speaker myself. Please don't hesitate to lend me a hand whenever you see fit, I'd much appreciate it. Love what you said, hope you have fun editing.

Uriel1022 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uriel1022: Looks just swell. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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) 11:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Owen Jones's elaborately ornamented Book of Common Prayer reportedly "pointed to the direction that books in general were to follow in the Victorian Age"? Source: [1]
- Reviewed:

Created by Uriel1022 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

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

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A QPQ is not needed in this case. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uriel1022 and SL93: There is a citation needed tag in the article that should be resolved before this can be promoted. Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just making it clear that there is an issue. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been failing to find references, photos or any scanned content to demonstrate the difference between the first edition and the 1863 "simple" edition. I know it because I own a copy of the 1863 "simple" edition, please check out my photos on Wikimedia, I can provide more photos if necessary.

Uriel1022 (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uriel1022 Is removing that part from the article an option until it can be referenced? SL93 (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93 I only removed the part concerning the "eight illuminated title pages", because I think the "alteration and simplification of page ornaments" can be illustrated by the two pictures in "Overview" section.

Uriel1022 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that basing the text off of the images would be original research. "Enhanced version" and "simple version" are quoted, but where do those quotations come from? SL93 (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93 I removed everything concerning the "simple version". "Enhanced version" and "simple version" are based on factual difference between the two 1863 editions, how should they be referred to otherwise?

Uriel1022 (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uriel1022 That's not my issue. My issue is that quotes would mean that you're quoting something. The new source is fine, but calling it an enhanced version is original research when the source doesn't say it. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93 Please take a look at the article and let me know if there are still any problems.

Uriel1022 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is approved. I removed the quoting for the "simple" version. It can be added back if the edition itself says the word "simple". SL93 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]