Talk:Lima Liturgy

Pre-GA Nomination

@JohnThorne: thank you for the lofty assessment! Just wondering, would this make a suitable GA nominee? I usually have one article in the queue at all times, but currently have none. I think I've already covered the best sources, just have to expand the lead a little bit. I also plan to translate this into Finnish, but that would be better after a successful GA run, I think. Cheers! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: It seems to meet the criteria of a good article. You should nominate it. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The article looks good. I have added a few citation required tags and fixed a typo but otherwise I'd support it for GA. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lima Liturgy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 08:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Due this being a long article, the GA review shall be broken into the same sections of the Article, in order to make matters manageable.

Lead

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. The Lead is a neat introduction and it is appropriate to refer to the Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM) document.
   2. The Lead might include a comment that some ecclesial communities do not allow inter-communion, hence the significant impact of this particular liturgy.

 

---

Here endeth the review in part, the part being Lead; the next section of the review shall be History.

This is a work in progress, not complete.

History

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. The clarification, a document on doctrine, not liturgy. is an excellent inclusion.
   2. The three principal celebrations of this liturgy are highlighted, as well as the conclusion No longer was worship a problem to be addressed by the assembly. A good illustration of ecumenical harmony.
   3. Outcome: a usable ecumenical liturgy
   4. An important highlight: the Lima Liturgy served to further the significance of BEM, particularly its understanding of the Eucharist
   5. The inclusion of the matter of the Female Oriental Orthodox reader is signal in its case, and utterly relevant!
   6. This section is good, crisp in its delivery; inclusion of the Old Catholic Church and its adoption of prayers illustrates the strengths of this liturgy. Good finish to this section.

 

---

Here endeth the review in part, the part being History; the next section of the review shall be Structure.

This is a work in progress, not complete.

Structure

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. Inclusion of an Infobox with linked divisions in the liturgy is both informative and laudable delivery.
   2. Links to the different elements in the varia divisions help the reader to understand the significance of this particular delivery
   3. Always important to recall the berakhah and the Didache. Good inclusions.
   4. Ah, the Protestant Anamnesis. Poor Ambrose!
   5. OK, wording of the First Epiclesis is broad and important as it marks out necessary distinctions in understandings of memorial nature of Eucharist. Another good inclusion.
   6. Lathrop's criticisms: might be better described as a convergence of roles in rites with elimination of all forms of consecration. It is a sagacious inclusion (for its time) and common of criticisms that might end up in the dustbin of history.
   7. Adaptation of liturgy to the needs of the celebrating community are a welcome unfolding graciousness in post-reformation churches, but the flavour of restriction and obedience illuminated all that is latin-Catholic and Orthodox... Bezuidenhoudt's observations are acute.

 

---

Here endeth the review in part, the part being Structure; the next section of the review shall be End Matter.

This is a work in progress, not complete. -- Whiteguru (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up the review, Whiteguru, and thank you for your so far thorough and thoughtful analysis. I'm glad if you've enjoyed reading the article. I'm happy to hear that you have found the many comments I've referenced and quoted from sources insightful. This liturgy, as I'm sure you are aware by now, is as much about what it is as it is about what various commentators have thought about it. I'll take another look at the lead when you're finished with the section-by-section review. Thanks again! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 

---

End Matter

1. It is Broad in its coverage?
   1. Checking of works cited shows depth of research and a broad range of commentary on this liturgy across ecumenical communities.
2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
   1. The links given directly address the accommodations of the Lima Liturgy and its further possibilities.
   2. The Liturgy itself is linked, along with World Council of Churches document, Celebrations of Eucharist in Ecumenical Context. A good reference.
   3. Notes are succinct and appropriate.
   4. Works Cited: all examined.
3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
   1. A neutral point of view is given in this article.
4. Is it stable?
   1. Page is created on 16 September 2019 and has had 988 page views in the current year. It has received a total of 26 edits from 2 human authors, and there are 27 links to this page. There is no evidence of edit warring, so considered a stable page.
5. It is illustrated by images : the info box has an attractive representation of Eucharist..
6. Overall:

Pass Y

@Whiteguru: I have now exapnded the lead. Please have a look. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: That is a neat resolution of the matter. Rather well expressed, actually. I'll wind up the GA Pass now. -- Whiteguru (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)