Talk:Locus iste (Bruckner)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 23:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article tomorrow. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it well-written? Symbol wait.svg
 * 1. "Locus iste (This place)" - I suggest re-writing this to "Locus iste (English: This place)".
 * done GA
 * 2. "It was published in 1886, together with two other gradual motets" - This seems like something to mention after "composed by Anton Bruckner in 1869".
 * I don't think so, as it was much later. First what it is. GA
 * 3. "Votivkapelle (votive chapel (de))" - I honestly don't think there is any need for the "(de)" link.
 * I had hoped to start a little article, but gave up, therefore dropped. Any idea how to say that this is not the typical (little, separate building) votive chapel, other than looking at the image? GA
 * 4. "and composed Preiset den Herrn (Praise the Lord) on a text by Maximilian Pammesberger. It was performed on 1 May 1862 on the building site" - Is suggest connection these two sentences to something like "and composed Preiset den Herrn (Praise the Lord) on a text by Maximilian Pammesberger, which was performed on 1 May 1862 on the building site".
 * done, but reads a bit as if the text was performed ;) GA
 * 5. "While some sources claim that the motet was first performed on the dedication day, 29 September 1869, together with the first performance of Bruckner's Mass in E minor, it was performed four weeks later, on 29 October, at the same location" - To avoid confusion, which also hit me, I would suggest adding "in reality" between "was" and "performed".
 * taken GA
 * 6. "Bruckner dedicated the work to his student at the Vienna Conservatory, Oddo Loidol" - Wording doesn't quite flow. I suggest reformulating it to "Bruckner dedicated the work to Oddo Loidol, one his student at the Vienna Conservatory".
 * tried, hope it's not like the source now (sometimes that's the reason for "not flowing", - the flow being in the source) GA
 * 7. "(Christus factus est III, WAB 11, Os justi, WAB 30 and Virga Jesse, WAB 52)" In this sentence, I don't think it's necessary to mention WAB numbers.
 * I don't agree because the numbers tell some readers more than the titles. Let's drop III. GA
 * 8. Hmmm ... Why not use a table to display the poem and English translation?
 * 9. "Iso Camartin" - So far the article has not mentioned anything about Camartin, so I suggest writing "Swiss author Iso Camartin" instead of simply "Iso Carmartin" with a link to his article to avoid confusion.
 * with pleasure GA
 * 10. "Camartin notes: "das unanfechtbare Geheimnis" (the irreproachable mystery)" - The "das unanfechtbare Geheimnis" part should be in italics not quotes.
 * done, but how do we know now that it is a quote, only from the context? GA
 * 11. "as "unfassbar" (incomprehensible)" - Same here.
 * same GA
 * 12. "beunruhigend" (disturbing)" - And of course here as well.
 * same GA


 * Is it verifiable with no original research? Symbol wait.svg
 * The sources used in this article checks out, but I would strongly recommend making a "Source" section, list all the books cited in this article there, and then used Harvard references.


 * Is it broad in its coverage? Symbol support vote.svg
 * Is it neutral? Symbol support vote.svg
 * Is it stable? Symbol support vote.svg
 * The article has quite a history of content disputes, however, they all seem to have faded in importance.


 * Is it illustrated? Symbol support vote.svg
 * The article is not far off from meeting the GA-criteria, but I have outlined some loopholes in my review which needs to be fixed before it can be listed, so going to put it on hold and give the GA-nominator a chance to respond. Good work people. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see what I made of your good suggestions, received with thanks. Referencing: I prefer Harvard, but this article was started by a user who usually insists that I obey WP:CITEVAR and that I ask the community before changing, even for articles where I was the only editor. I asked about opposition on the talk, but will politely wait a bit. The same editor does not like an infobox, - that was about the only reason for dispute that I see. The article was fully protected until yesterday, I removed a parameter from the infobox that does't appear in the body, but think otherwise the box supplies wanted key features at a glance, especially useful for a foreign language title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please let me know why the first recording and the approximate number of recordings have been removed. There was no opposition to put them within the "selected discography".
 * Why has "bar" (British English) been replaced by "measure" (American English)? "Bar" is the term preferred by Wikipedia: see Bar (music). "Measure" is redirecting to it: see Measure (music). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gerda Arendt, the article is better now. Harv references was, at the end of the day, a suggestion and after what you told me about WP:CITEVAR, I don't think it's such a big deal. Regarding point 3, I think the image is more than fine and don't think you should go into any further detail about it. Regarding point 4, I think the reader will understand the true meaning. Regarding point 10, I actually meant that the German wording should be in italics and also quotes like this: "Camartin notes: "das unanfechtbare Geheimnis". And Meneerke bloem, I have restored the part you mentioned in question. With these improvements and discussions I don't see any reason not to pass it. Excellent job. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)