Jump to content

Talk:Geoffrey Cuming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 PrimalMustelid talk 17:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 00:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Geoffrey Cuming; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Pbritti, as the emergency backlog mode is in operation and you have previously nominated more than 20 articles at DYK, you will need to provide an additional QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Good to know—I'll do my best to review a bonus DYK on top of the second QPQ. Here's hoping we can clear this backlog! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second QPQ complete, ready for a review! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti:: New (moved to mainspace March 11), long enough (over 9,700 per DYK check), cited, neutral, Earwig reported violation unlikely, 4.8% (but could not check several sources), QPQs done, hook length checked ok.
The hook has two independent topics, consider alternatives. Also, I could not find the source (Jasper, R. C. D. (1989)) for the second part of the hook (one of five). Are there online sources? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeete: The use of two facts about a subject is fine as far as I'm aware (per the guidelines) and no, sadly, the Jasper source remains offline. I can privately message you an image of the page if need be. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti:: Could you suggest an alternative without the second part. "One of five" does not sound interesting or intriguing. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeete: Sure!
  • ALT1: ... that Geoffrey Cuming edited what has been called a gramophone librarian's "Bible"?
Let me know if there are any additional outstanding concerns–I'll be unavailable most of the next 24 hours but will try to make myself available at least at some point to respond to anything you might want to discuss! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Geoffrey Cuming/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 21:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 14:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I am beginning a co-review with Rollinginhisgrave. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

Last updated: 04:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC) by PARAKANYAA

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
2c) it contains no original research
2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
  • No evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing. The only matches are direct quotations or book titles.

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

[edit]

Content and sources (only part of the way through)

  • Per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, a nationality descriptor in the lead sentence is expected, and while Church of England implies English, the implication is not necessary.
    •  Done.
  • which produced the Alternative Service series, Alternative Service Book, and Common Worship. Why not link the "Alternative Service" series, and what is the relation between the Alternative Service series and the ASB? Unclear.
    • There is no article (yet!) for the Alternative Service series. It was a number of pamphlet/booklet publications released in the 1960s and 1970s across three series and, unfortunately, gets absurdly complicated rather quickly. I recently bought three books with the aim of making an article just about the series, so stay tuned for that. I may try to add a sentence here that more thoroughly addresses the series' role and importance.
      • There's some discussion in the ASB page here; if the connection is not drawn in the sentence I think a jumplink will help even though the main ASB page is linked next.
  • Source 1 is a primary source only accessibly via Ancestry.com; a secondary source is preferred. Does the Ancestry.com source validate just the birth date or also the location? If only the former, bring forward the CDSP obituary note, which does mention the birthplace.
    •  Done.
  • Schoolmate Henry Chadwick described Cuming as "quiet and bookish". It is unclear which source verifies this. A spot-check of the source at the end of the next sentence does not reveal this quotation.
    • This is sourced in the citation provided. The full quote from page vii of Chadwick's forward in The Identity of Anglican Worship is {{tq|I first knew him as a musician, and recall him in 1934 introducing me, three years his schoolboy junior, to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, an enthusiasm that made a splendid contrast to his otherwise quiet and bookish ways."
  • Late in life, Geoffrey Cuming was known for his humour and grey beard but his disabilities caused by wartime injury left him growingly limited in what he could do. He died at age 70[5] during the night of 24 March 1988 in Houston, Texas. A month prior, Cuming had a successful arterial bypass surgery; he had been discussing returning to England with his daughter during the hours preceding his death. Memorial services in both Houston and Oxford were planned, with his ashes to be interned at the latter. Generally, material should be presented in chronological order per MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL. Not seeing a good reason to do otherwise here.
  • Prior to and during the Second World War, Cuming maintained a record of newly released musical records. Repetition of "record" unclear here; suggest rephrasing.
    • Please check if my attempt to resolve is good.
  • Their text was called "huge" by music historian Harold C. Schonberg. Place the Schonberg citation after this sentence.
    •  Done.
  • While Vicar of Humberstone Lowercase the "v".
  • In the paragraph, can you provide a brief line of additional context for the significance of the work on Alternative Services in light of the broader liturgical reform movement of the mid-20th century and the failure of prayer book revision in the 1920s? I think it's helpful for the reader to place Cuming's accomplishments in context.
  • For the October 1966 issue of Theology, Cuming wrote a study in defence of the phrase "we offer this bread and cup" within the eucharistic rite. It was one of four such studies written for that issue, of which three favoured the phrase. The studies were responding to the evangelical Liturgical Commission member Buchanan's criticism of the phrase as too catholic in his pamphlet The New Communion Service—Reasons for Dissent. Cuming's study focussed on 16th- and 17th-century Anglican eucharistic theology to make the case that offering the sacramental elements had long been interpreted in a memorialist fashion. Ultimately, to secure passage in the Liturgical Conference, Jasper proposed the revised form of "with this bread and cup we make the memorial of his saving passion", which was approved by Convocation and published for the Series Two communion office. I cannot view the text of the Jasper book, which I assume validates this whole paragraph, but can you repeat the citation to Cuming's Theology study and Buchanan's pamphlet in response?
  • Buchanan, reviewing the first edition, criticized some "minutiae" but called it "a model of historical, and often original, scholarship".[18] Buchanan later positively referenced the book's second edition, published in 1982, as a notable historic resource Buchanan did more than that in the first edition of his Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism, saying that there is "no single-volume scholarly or readable overview to match" Cuming's History of Anglican Liturgy. Perhaps worth a mention here.
    • I can't access that source at the moment due to some issues with Internet Archive. Will add if IA survives the next week.
  • The Agnus Dei, a Latin chant that had accompanied the fraction rite (which had been removed in the 1549 prayer book), was removed from the Anglican liturgy in the 1552 prayer book. Is this correct? I believe the Agnus Dei is in the 1549 communion rite, and the sentence reads more clearly if the Agnus Dei was in the 1549. Is Buchanan the source for this statement? (I don't have access to that text.)
    • You're right that the Agnus Dei survived in the 1549, but the sentence reads that the Agnus Dei survived in the 1549 despite its accompanying fraction rite not. The Agnus Dei disappeared in the 1552 prayer book, as the article discusses.
      • Then I think the sentence needs to be rewritten; it's ambiguous whether the Agnus Dei or the fraction rite is what had been removed. --Dclemens
        •  Done
  • his ashes to be interned at the latter "interred," not "interned"
    •  Done

Format

  • An infobox is not required but is helpful.
    • I considered one, but the articles on his notable works are pending and are the only major elements that I would add to an infobox. If I end up completing those articles, I'll put together an infobox.
      • Understood, and I wouldn't let this stand in the way of a pass.
  • Suggested image to add: Alternative Service Book cover
    •  Done

Source check

  • Cuming was influenced in his promotion of liturgical revision by Gregory Dix's Shape of the Liturgy. Cuming expressed that the 1662 prayer book's communion office "obscured and confused" Jesus's actions at the Last Supper, ignored Jesus's resurrection, lacked substantial reference to the Holy Spirit and the Old Testament, and had archaic language. Cuming was also concerned with the adaption of liturgical music to the new rites. He expressed belief that Series Two rites lent themselves to previous musical settings from John Merbecke of the 16th century to Martin Shaw of the 20th century, but found Series Three rites presented musicians a "completely new set of texts". Cuming, "a champion of the new liturgies", was criticized by church music historian Martin Thomas as failing to communicate the basis for the revisions, something "indicative of a wider failure of communication between scholars engaged in revision and the clergy who worked with the new material". The source provided here (Thomas) does not validate the statement in the first sentence that Cuming specifically was influenced by Dix, only that Dix was influential "in liturgical circles" for the fourfold shape of the eucharistic liturgy. Can you provide another source for the first sentence?
    • I think I had this sourced to something else in my notes, but I don't have that now. Removing it as I would presume that a notable influence would have been mentioned more clearly elsewhere.
  • I spot-checked the following sources of those that were accessible to me and they validated the statements they are offered: CDSP obit, Cuming on his Encyclopedia, NYT Review, Buchanan review, Spinks review. It would be valuable to provide Internet Archive links for books that are available for checkout on that platform.

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for the review! I think I've replied to or addressed all comments above. Do you spot any other opportunities for improvement? ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added some additional comments under each section above.

Note from first reviewer: I have completed my portion of the review and will now pass the baton to my co-reviewer, Rollinginhisgrave, for additional feedback. I think this article is in very good shape. I have a couple of questions on sourcing and some prose points that remain. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finished up my portion of the review. Thanks for your patience as I've worked through this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rollinginhisgrave

[edit]

Doing a second review here (starting off):

Prose and content

[edit]
  • a major discography glossing an Encyclopedia of Recorded Music feels redundant
    •  Done.
  • included collaboration a collaboration or collaborations?
    •  Done.
  • Cuming was an advisor to the Church of England's committees active voice for concision
    •  Done.
  • He spent three consecutive semesters teaching... Given this is undated, can you clarify if this was at any point in his career or if it is chronological?
    • It is chronological, but the dates here are a bit fuzzy from sourcing.
  • Cuming would perform research[ed] on recordings
    •  Done.
  • continued through the war and until you have already made the point that it was during the war.
    •  Done.
  • The book was criticized by Richard S. Hill more accurate to say the book's title was criticized.
    •  Done.
  • that largely failed to influence the revision process this is quite confusing. It seems to imply they were trying to influence the creation of a 17th century text.
    •  Done.
  • Christianity in Egypt would be a good link for "Egyptian Christian liturgical practices"
    •  Done.
  • While Vicar of Humberstone and for his experience as a Book of Common Prayer historian can you reorder this sentence? While is initially ambiguous (concurrently with vs although)
Magenta clockclock
  • since the first Act of Uniformity: give the date of this
Magenta clockclock
  • Shape of the Liturgy would be a good redlink:
  1. GUTIÃ, Rrez-M. J. L. Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy. Scripta Theologica, [s. l.], v. 40, n. 1, p. 317, 2008. Disponível em
  2. The Shape of the Liturgy, by Dom Gregory Dix. 764 pp. London, Dacre Press, 1945. 45 s link
  3. Jungmann, Jos. A. Zeitschrift Für Katholische Theologie, vol. 70, no. 2, 1948, pp. 224–31. link
    • Removed mention to it, but don't worry: an article is coming sometime in the next four months!
So specific haha, looking forward to it Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in defence of defending
  • as too catholic Apologies if this is incorrect, but if it's not referencing Catholicity, shouldn't this be capitalized?
    • There does not appear to be a consistent style for this. SPCK, OUP, and the Alcuin Club (authority publishers in the subject area) alternate between capitalization and lowercase. Going with capitalization per your comment.
  • approved by Convocation Why does this lack an article?
    • Grammatical norms in British English seem to drop the definite article here. Most publications that mention Convocation do this.
Interesting, I made this comment based on the wiki article on Convocation's use of articles. Some potential changes to be made there. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain the link free translation?
Magenta clockclock This is still going over my head, could you spell it out a bit? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: There is a sentence Cuming produced a free translation of the Agnus Dei for his modernized "translation" of the Series Two communion office that remains in widespread use.. Free translation links to the page Untranslatability which doesn't mention free translation beyond being a redirect, so it's not clear what the relationship between the two concepts are. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: Ah! I removed the link; thought it was a better link. Thanks for explaining. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • growingly limited increasingly
    •  Done.
  • growingly limited in what he could do this is really vague. Can some precision be given?
    • The sourcing was vague here, too.
  • had met each other
    •  Done

Suggestions

[edit]
  • The English... church of England reads awkwardly, would be good to break it up a bit further as "English clerygman from/for the Church of England" if that's grammatical
    •  Done. Agree on that.
  • Bit nitpicky, but I think music records is preferable to musical records
    • Ibid.
  • Errs into stylistic, but for concision you can elide the repetition of "would" in Cuming would perform research on recordings and Clough would catalogue
    • Ibid.
  • lacked substantial reference to the Holy Spirit and the Old Testament would "sufficient" be more appropriate than substantial here?
    • Cuming's phrasing here is a tad awkward (an instance of elevated Oxbridge diction getting in its own way).
  • presented musicians a with a
    •  Done

Other

[edit]
  • Deferring to Dclemens1971's source analysis.
  • All else looks good.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 and Rollinginhisgrave: Ok! I think I've addressed everything in one way or another. There are a couple suggested changes that I didn't make, so please ensure that you are ok with those decisions before passing this. If either of you find any further issues, please let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more things to touch on, I've marked things I'd like a note of with a Magenta clockclock. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else from me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: I think everything is addressed now besides one thing: not sure what you mean about the translation link, as the free translation is found now in the external links. Let me know if you need more detail there. Good fixes, @Dclemens1971:. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passing as all our concerns are met. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geoffrey_Cuming&oldid=1254477215"