Talk:Gott ist mein König, BWV 71/GA1

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

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I will give my comments by tomorrow. Best,  Ya  sh  !   16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * "He composed it in Mühlhausen for the inauguration of a new town council on 4 February 1708." - mentioning the date here goes off topic. Additionally, the same is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead. I would suggest rather to include when it was composed which according to the prose is between 1707-08.
 * Why go unprecise when we - for a change! compare all the other early cantatas - know exactly. It's a standardfor the Bach cantatas to mention the date as precisely as we know in the first paragraph. --GA


 * "...and free poetry by an unknown poet of Bach's time connects to the political occasion" -> "...and free poetry by an unknown poet of Bach's time which relates to the political occasion"
 * good, thank you --GA


 * The quote sounds odd in the current sentence. Also, much better if it is written out in your own words.
 * you are right, but if I'd say "four separate instrumental choirs" it would by close paraphrasing, no? --GA


 * "only this one time" -> "only for this particular event"
 * "Stylistically it shares features with Bach's other early cantatas." - in "Music" and "Importance" it is mentioned that it is different from early works. Perhaps this lead sentence needs to be revisited.
 * It shares much more than what differs, --GA


 * Include a summary of "Importance" in the lead. Isn't the "printing" importance enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

History and words

 * Ref for the first paragraph?
 * doubled (sorry,missed that when splitting the paragraph) --GA


 * "the organist of one of" -> "the organist at one of" - 'of' repetition makes it sound off. ;)
 * yes ;)


 * "BWV 131" -> "Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131" - since that is how BWV 150 is written and is better to write the full name.
 * yes --GA


 * "speculated" by?
 * "thought" by?
 * both questions: I didn't write that, Thoughtfortheday did (who just made the cantata mentioned above a GA yesterday). We could say that Alfred Dürr reports that it has been speculated, but Werner Neumann thought that ..., - but after the result (one sentence later) is open: is it necessary to make it more complicated? --GA


 * "in other words" - best to not mention that.
 * tried --GA


 * "but it is lost" -> "which was lost".
 * somehow seems not strong enough for the disappointing fact that half of Bach's cantatas printed during his lifetime was lost --GA

Theme

 * Ref for the first paragraph and the text in bullets?
 * First paragraph: let's ask Thoughtfortheday. The bulleted text is the biblical text is the cantata text, - no source needed, I'd think. --GA


 * "and thus" -> "thus".
 * yes ::GA


 * The translated text is in two different paragraphs which looks odd. Perhaps have the first translation after a "-". For example: "Verse 12: "Gott ist mein König von Alters her, der alle Hülffe thut, so auf Erden geschicht." - God is my Sovereign since ancient days, who all salvation brings which on earth may be found (ASV: Yet God is my King of old, Working salvation in the midst of the earth).
 * I tried it differently, please look, --GA


 * "have been seen" by whom? Perhaps could be rephrased.
 * I removed the sentence entirely, and boldly moved the two refs to where they were missing at the beginning of the paragraph. --GA


 * "suggested" by?
 * "The importance of "borders" may be an allusion to Charles XII's invasion of Saxony in 1706, and who, in 1708, represented a threat to Mühlhausen." - ref?
 * probably another one for Thoughtfortheday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The full stop should not be inside the quotation if I am not mistaken.
 * moved --GA

Structure and scoring

 * Why is it disputed? Do explain in the article.
 * We don't do that even in Featured articles. We just have to mention that it is not sure that we see Bach. --GA


 * Can we have the duration?
 * will search, - Dürr book is offline for those pages,- could look at recordings --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Music

 * "A model for such "theatrical splendour" we oratorios" - not sure why there is a "we" in this sentence.
 * fixed typo --GA


 * "the psalm" -> "Psalm 74" - or am I missing something?
 * no,-do you think it needs to be repeated? --GA


 * "Another psalm verse" - shouldn't "p" be in capitals?
 * no, Psalm 74, but the psalms, a psalm verse, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Importance

 * Ref for the first paragraph?
 * made it one,and dropped some repetition, - it's more a summary than something new --GA


 * Link Leipzig.
 * not again ;) (hesitate to link to present-day Leipzig in Bach articles anyway)


 * "fifteen" -> "15"
 * no longer there


 * "for not more than one repeat performance" -> "solely for one performance" or "for only one performance" or anything else that you'd like.
 * not sure, - I read that one repeat was planned, which would make it two, - not sure because again, I didn't write it,and perhaps you understand better what was meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)