Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1845 illuminated version)
- 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)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Book of Common Prayer (1845 illuminated version)
- ... 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).
- 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)
- @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)
Just making it clear that there is an issue. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Uriel1022 Is removing that part from the article an option until it can be referenced? SL93 (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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?
- 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)
- 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 Is removing that part from the article an option until it can be referenced? SL93 (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
