Talk:Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll finish this soon. JAG UAR   13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * The lead is far too short per WP:LEADLENGTH; it needs to be at least two paragraphs long and must summarise the article
 * "This allows the work to be dated to 1707–08 the period when Bach was living in Mühlhausen" - semi colon needed between "08" and "the"
 * "but he seems to have had a good relationship with Eilmar" - I didn't see how this was relevant to the sentence and it's also a little confusing for it to be in present tense? I would suggest rephrasing this to although he seemed to have had a good relationship with Eilmar, but I don't know what context this is for
 * "on the assumption that it was composed not long after arrival" - arrival of what? His employment as an organist or his arrival in the city?
 * "However, some of Bach's early cantatas are difficult to date, and he may well have started" - informal, lose "well"
 * "His ability as a composer was recognised by the town council who paid for the printing of the 1708 cantata Gott ist mein Konig, BWV 71." - this needs a citation
 * "The editor was Wilhelm Rust" - this too is unsourced and needs a citation
 * "It is true that the structure of the cantata is in many ways unusual, compared to Bach's later cantatas" - this seems unencyclopaedic, did critics themselves think the structure was unusual? If so, you could change it to Some critics/name of critic thought that the structure of the cantata was unusual
 * Ref 13 is dead and redirects to the main page
 * The text is "aus der Tiefe" and not "aus der Tiefen", yet in every instance the incorrect text is used. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.225.60 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

On hold
This isn't a bad article. The only issues that stand in the way of it becoming GA are the shortness of the lead, some minor prose issues and a couple of unencyclopaedic material I found. Perhaps could help you as I was told this is your first nomination! Once all of the above are clarified, I'll take another look, but the rest of the article is looking solid. JAG UAR   13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for your comments. I have asked Gerda if she could have a look, and I have started amending the article.


 * 1) lede is in process of being expanded.
 * 2) I have reworded the sentence in question.
 * 3) As regards the minister who commissioned the cantata I have put in some more about him and hope it is clearer now. The purpose of the cantata is a bit of a mystery, so I think it is useful to say what we know about him.
 * 4) I have reworded the sentence in question.
 * 7) Reference given.
 * 8) I have deleted the sentence in question.
 * 9 ) Url updated.
 * Thoughtfortheday (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying all of the above. I went through the article again and am happy that this meets the GA criteria. The lead has been expanded to a sufficient length and the prose is well written. Well done on all the work put into this! I understand how difficult it must be to find information on one of Bach's first cantatas.  JAG  UAR   20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)