Talk:Es ist das Heil uns kommen her, BWV 9/GA1

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 03:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Third on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer, no rush, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from reviewer

 * I commented in general below. This is part of agroup of articles, please understand that I just say "FA" below instead of "this has been done that way in featured articles". ---GA


 * Calling Speratus the "author of the chorale" may be a bit confusing for some readers, who may conflate author with composer and chorale and cantata.
 * FA - Sorry, we can't explain basic terms in every one of around 200 cantatas. That's what Bach cantata is for ---GA


 * I don't think that that explanatory note is necessary--just link the article as in BWV 9.
 * FA - A link from a bolded redirect is not wanted. The link is in the infobox. A recent discussion asked for an explanation, and a note seemed the least obtrusive. It's in all articles which carry BWV in the title, which includes all cantatas. ---GA


 * Is this the appropriate naming convention for the article? Is it correct for Bach cantata article titles to be written like this, or should it be something like "Es its das Heil uns kommen her (cantata)"?
 * Yes, the discussed name since 2010 ---GA


 * linking "church cantata" to Bach cantata is a bit of a WP:EASTER
 * Yes. A bit of history: Church cantata used to be a redirect to Bach cantata. Now it's to Church cantata (Bach). I tried the wording "is a cantata by JSB. He wrote the church cantata ...", - but it was regarded as clumsy and repetitive. I would do it for you, though ;) - We need a link to Bach cantata, to explain what that is, for those who don't know. ---GA
 * I think it's fine. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you mean ten inner stanzas of the original chorale?
 * what else? ---GA


 * Is "like a sermon interrupted in reflection by a tenor aria with solo violin and a duet of soprano and alto with the wind instruments" a personal judgement or something given in a source?
 * in the source, - not an idea I would come up with ;) ---GA


 * Link to Köthen (Anhalt).
 * done ---GA


 * Why exactly was it left until ten years later?
 * would be lovely to know that ---GA
 * Oh, okay. :P


 * Perhaps a file of Bach around the time he composed the piece on the left would be nice...
 * Do you mean an image? Yes, but we have only two of him, on one he is way too young, and it's debated if it's even him, on the other he is a generation too old. ---GA
 * Okay, but honestly, I think that File:Young Bach2.jpg is close enough for here. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He is about 10 years too young, and thestyle wouldmuch a court event better than this very serious topic ;) ---GA


 * "The hymn in 14 stanzas…" a bit clunky--maybe "The 14-stanza hymn matches the topic of the gospel."
 * yes ---GA


 * "according among others to Julian Mincham" awkward wording again--should be "according to Julian Mincham, among others…"
 * I dropped the others, because then you get "others, who" while you mean him by the "who". ---GA


 * About the librettist: per MOS:GNL, we should avoid the use of the generic he. Although it was probably a man, we technically don't know, and unless there's something referring to the librettist as a man, we should avoid it. How do you feel about singular they? If not, could you do another one of the techniques in WP:GENDER?
 * I don't even use it on talk pages. It reminds me of the wording of my arbcom restriction "admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves." ---GA


 * "Bach had used selected stanzas of the hymn before, in 1716 stanza 12 to conclude Mein Gott, wie lang, ach lange? BWV 155, in 1723 both stanza 12 and 11 to conclude the two parts of Ärgre dich, o Seele, nicht, BWV 186, and in 1724 stanza 11 to conclude Wahrlich, wahrlich, ich sage euch, BWV 86." This should be sourced.
 * copied ref from the hymn, for the tune,- there are sources out for the exact stanzas (in the cantatas), but I think they would look rather confusing here) ---GA


 * For the autograph title page, why do you have to include all the slashes? Were there even slashes in the original?
 * The lashes indicate line brakes in the original. ---GA


 * Is it standard to include File:Commontime.svg when it's marked that way in the score?
 * It was requested in a FA review, and I copied from there. In a recent table I wrote 4/4 instead, for more narrow lines. ---GA
 * If it's in an FA, you can definitely keep it. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "is made a quintet of also" not the best wording. Perhaps "is accompanied by"
 * No, because instead of a leading part with accompaniment we have five parts of equal value: a quintet. ---GA
 * Okay, but the wording is still quite award. Perhaps "turns into a quintet joined by…" Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * tried ---GA


 * What is polyphony unusual for? For cantatas? It's very clearly not Bach in general (obviously the fugues are full of it), so specify that.
 * for closing chorales which are normally set in simple homophony ---GA
 * I might specify that Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * triedbut I am careful with such explanations, because a different reviewer might say it's WP:OR. --- GA


 * "The sortable listing is taken from the selection provided by Aryeh Oron on the Bach-Cantatas website." This time I would use an explanatory note for this--remove it from the text proper and copy it into a note, ref and all, probably after the table's header.
 * FA - A source for the table entries was requested, - the alternative to mentioning it upfront would be to add it to every entry which would make sense if they were different. ---GA


 * Is sources really just an external links section? If so, name it that and possibly cut down on the number of links.
 * It's the score, and the best digital website on the topic their is, with many further links to sources. Some cantatas have a different section for external links.

---GA

Nice work! It's great that you're doing so much good work on classical music articles, an area on WP that to which very few people seem to devote their time. Fix these up, and you'll be ready to go! :) Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice to wake up to a diligent review! I will get to replies only later today. Perhaps compare to other articles on the topic, such as FA Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172, and some questions may be answered. Thanks also for the "good work", - with some pride I noticed yesterday that of 44 GAs 18 are not by me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope I could clarify some concerns and look forward to more ideas! ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See my inline responses above. Thank you for the detailed and adequate responses. I'm always open to someone discussing comments with me, and especially when it's done so in such a well thought-out way. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried. Never so far was I dealing with three reviews the same day ;) ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Final assessment
Okay, I'm satisfied now. Pass. If it isn't too much trouble, could you review one of my Veronica Mars for GA? If it's too far out of your comfort zone, I understand. :) Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: