Talk:Herrscher des Himmels, erhöre das Lallen, BWV 248 III/GA1

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

Reviewer: RoseCherry64 (talk · contribs) 00:53, 14 January 2022 (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, 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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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:

Will get this review done this weekend, just noting for now that on a quick glance, I noticed that BWV2a does not have a bibliographic entry in the books section which would make 2a fail. RoseCherry64 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Review done, see below. RoseCherry64 (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Passed after revisions. RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Review
Lead:
 * Good lead, don't have any problems with it.

Wording:
 * ✅ The phrase "high holidays" has Jewish connotations (High Holy Days), Durr & Jones 2006, p. 25 uses the wording "High Feasts, Christmas, Easter and Whit". Due to the many variations in Christian traditions, I think it's necessary to explain exactly what holidays this meant in Leipzig at the time or find a wikilink appropriate for the context.
 * Understand, but wouldn't know which link. BWV 248 II uses the same wording. The three high holidays or feasts are Christmas, Easter and Pentecost/Whitsun. Should we just say so? --GA
 * I think putting "high holidays (Christmas, Easter and Pentecost)" for the first mention would be reasonable for all readers to understand. You could also use a footnote if you wanted. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Resolved, so ticking off. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Latin Missa -> Latin missa
 * That specific one is called Missa, see title page, - reworded --GA

Article structure:
 * ✅ Meets 3a and b, only thing that it lacks expected for a classical work is information about recordings. There already is the Christmas Oratorio discography article, I would suggest adding a recordings section that just points to it, like on Christmas Oratorio.
 * I made a "See also" as for BWV 248 II --GA

Media:
 * ✅ There is recordings on the page, but they do not have any information about who performed it. I suggest adding a caption for the first linked recording, saying that all the sound files are performed by the same performer. Why are some movements missing, when recordings of them by the same performers exist on Commons?
 * I inherited the media files which were in the table of movements. I'm not really happy with them, taking too much room, and no native singers of German. I skipped the short ones for the short recitatives about which we can't say much, for layout reasons. --GA
 * I would suggest adding the recordings to the movements table, adding performance information above the table.
 * The only part that really needs to be addressed is that currently, the performers are hidden to the readers. Moving them to the table is just a suggestion for consideration. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I commented the table out for now because something is wrong with it's closing. I believe the audio is better positioned with the description than with the titles. I tried to add the no-name performers to the first entry, and trimmed the other. I could re-add the recitatives now that I know how to make the whole thing less intrusive. I still believe the German is on a less than helpful level (also in the brutal shortening of the titles), and wish we rather had a native boys choir with period instruments, but this is acceptable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Images lack alternative text.
 * added for the first, the score page - I wouldn't know what to say about the libretto pages besides what the caption already has --GA
 * Don't see any alt text for the score page in text only browser. Did you save the edit correctly? RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ [since not really needed for GA] Given that the work is obviously very Christian, I would suggest a third picture for the article of one of the churches mentioned in the background section. Perhaps Nikolaikirche with a caption that it was first performed there? The two pictures depicting pages are useful and valid for the article and I would suggest keeping both, but it doesn't really convey the work for a reader who can't read sheet music or German.
 * problem with the churches is that they are not really specific for this work, and the Nikolaikirche remodelled after Bach worked there --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Image choice still passes the GA criterion so I will just check this off. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References and verification:
 * ✅The YouTube link is not appropriate, per WP:YOUTUBE and it not being uploaded by the rightsholder.
 * I'm no expert in YT rights, just thought that we can't get closer to Bach's tradition than by a recording of "his" choir. --GA
 * The performance seems to be very good, but unfortunately, links to unofficial YouTube uploads aren't allowed per linked guideline. WP guidelines are very strict in this regard. Any YT link have to be either uploaded by the rightsholder or approved for upload by them, otherwise it's considered equivalent to linking to a piracy website. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * removed, but sad we can't offer something really good --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still listed on the page, I'll just remove it myself and mark this GA as passed.

Inaccuracies
 * ✅ The 2002 edition of Wolff's book on Google Books seems to be 9780199248841 published by Oxford University Press, not the ISBN/publisher combo currently. Consider adding the original publication year (2000) to the template as well.
 * changed to 2000 --GA
 * ✅ The citation to Wolff, pp. 237–257 is really long, this is a fairly big chunk of chapter 8.
 * It explains Bach's position in Leipzig in great detail, - readers who don't want that detail could stick with the article Thomaskantor to which I moved it now --GA
 * ✅ The citation to Dürr & Jones 2006, pp. 121–133 is also really long, it's the entirety of chapter 1.7. The Hebrews/John readings is on page 121.
 * For the readings, I changed to 121, leaving the "long" for all cantatas for the day which the chapter covers --GA
 * BWV2a is not in the cited sources, nor is all the Bach Digital sources. These should be moved there and use appropriate footnotes. Didn't notice this was fixed already before publishing review.
 * ✅ Why does one of the shortened footnote use a format like "D-LEm I. B. 2a at Bach Digital.", when all others not covered above use a different format like "Bach Digital 248 II 2021."?
 * Inherited from Francis Schonken, now changed --GA
 * ✅ Page ranges in the books under cited sources are not needed since shortened footnotes are used.
 * agree --GA
 * ✅ Instrument list in music and content section excludes timpani, which is in the source and also in infobox.
 * added to the list, - they always play with the trumpets, how to say that?
 * Honestly not really sure how to best put it, anyways, current revision is fine. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for good comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I haven't done many GA reviews before, this is my second one. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You did well!! I just formatted a bit, - when in a bulleted conversation, the bullet should appear in all succeeding comments (per User talk:Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)