Talk:Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * Rep of ambitious
 * "expands the contrast " -doesn't seem right here, try "illustrates" or "exaggerates" or something
 * The contrast is given by the biblical quote, he expands the thoughts, - better wording welcome. --GA

Any thoughts? Perhaps you can also provide some pointers here..♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if you make it "expands on" rather than just "expands" it will read very well.  Tim riley  talk    17:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, tried ---GA


 * History
 * Delink Thomaskantor and link in first instance in Background. Also why is one in Italics and not the other?
 * Linked in lede and on first occurrence in body now, all italic, --GA


 * Again "expands the contrast" and rep of "The poet expands"
 * s.a. --GA


 * "non-Leipzig paper" -what is that? Is Leipzig paper special or something?
 * Musicologists know the (different) kind of paper used in Leipzig vs. what Bach used in Köthen, - better wording welcome. --GA


 * Scoring
 * Just a list, not your usual summary? Couldn't you find anything in detail on each part?
 * Will be a table - after Nielsen ;) --GA


 * Music
 * Watch ] here : chorale cantata]s
 * thank you, fixed --GA

A source for selecting recordings would be useful at the top.
 * Do you mean for criteria of selection? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean add the citation link after "A list of recordings is provided by Aryeh Oron on the Bach-Cantatas website."
 * Made the source an inline citation, ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I was waiting to see if had some further points beyond my own but this looks passable now, good work.♦  Dr. Blofeld  09:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)