Talk:Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to give this a review JAG  UAR   11:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * "when Bach held the position of Thomaskantor" - I've seen this italicised in some articles. Does this need to be italicised here?
 * italic now, --GA


 * "He incorporated the work into his second cycle of Leipzig cantatas, the so-called chorale cycle based on Lutheran hymns, begun in 1724" - this might sound better as In 1724, Bach incorporated the work into his second cycle of Leipzig cantatas, the so-called chorale cycle based on Lutheran hymns
 * please try again ;) - the cycle was begun in (the middle of) 1724, but Easter was only in 1725 --GA


 * "This cantata fits the cycle in the sense that it is based on a chorale, but its style is different from the others and it is generally accepted that it was originally composed much earlier" - this needs a citation
 * This is kind of a summary of what follows, but I double the Dürr ref --GA


 * "However, it is possible to draw conclusions about which composers influenced the young Bach" - this sounds informal, is this part of a direct quote? "Young Bach" should be removed as it sounds unencyclopedic
 * I think, reading it again, that we don't need the sentence at all --GA


 * " If he ever composed any other cantata for Easter Sunday it didn't survive" - informal; did not survive, remove "ever"
 * done --GA


 * "It stresses the struggle between Life and Death" - why is Life and Death capitalised? Unless I'm mistaken and if it's taken out of the bible, please ignore!
 * look at the translation of the verse in the Dürr ref; it's like allegorical figures, such as Hope and Providence in other cantatas, --GA


 * Second paragraph in the Scoring and structure is mostly unsourced
 * that's a job for Thoughtfortheday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Citation needed tag in the Publication section
 * sigh, - dropped, --GA


 * Third paragraph in the Selected recordings section unsourced
 * The recordings are all sourced like the table, I doubled the ref. Of course the cantata is included in the five sets of complete conductors who made complete recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

On hold
I'm sorry if I took this review too early! I spotted a couple of things that can easily be rephrased, and a couple of paragraphs that need citations. Other than that it's very comprehensive for an early Bach work and I hope this GA review helps it on its way for a FAC! I'll leave this on hold. JAG UAR   22:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for good comments. It's an article with a long history, which explains some unevenness, and it's possibly Thoughtfortheday's first encounter with GA reviewing and requirements, - let's allow some time please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Why is the publication section so short and unsourced? Best to merge it and source it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What kind of source and more do you expect? It's in the free scores, first under Sources. All major Bach cantatas were published inthe Bach-Ausgabe and the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, - we often don't even mention that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I added the second publ, from the other two sources. Help in making that inline welcome, I have no time today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For GA no section or paragraph should be unsourced. Jaguar knows that too. Anything not attributed to a source looks like OR. If its just free scores that should go in the external links section.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying again: it is sourced to the Sources: the free score of the mentioned publication, and collections from bach-digital for the two versions. How to make that inline citation, if you really think it's needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and start converting the refs to Harvard as I would have done for FA anyway. I have many other things to do right now but don't see a different solution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All paragraphs must be sourced at least once in order to meet the GA criteria. I've just took another look at the article and it seems that it's improved now, with some choppy sentences being merged and everything needed sourcing has now been sourced. This article is also comprehensive and generally well written, if you plan on taking it to FA I wish it luck! For now it meets the GA criteria so I'll be promoting.  JAG  UAR   22:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)