Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read through. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is plainly of GA quality. I have some preliminary suggestions. I disapprove of GA reviewers who insist on minor stylistic changes even though the prose meets the GA criteria 1a and 1b. Most of the comments below are merely suggestions: promotion to GA is not conditional on their being acted upon, with one exception, identified at the end of these remarks. That looks like a formidable list, but in fact there's only one point that worries me much, and that's the inconsistent way individual words and phrases are punctuated/italicised. The plain spiritus meus, salutari, ecce enim ex hoc beatam etc should be in quotation marks, and dispersit, mente cordis etc should have the italics removed and quotation marks inserted. I think consistency on this point is a sticking point so far as promotion to GA is concerned, and I should need convincing that standardising on any other form than unitalicised text in quotation marks is compliant with the MoS. –  Tim riley  talk    10:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bach's beginning in Leipzig
 * "He had worked before…" – this is a question of nuance of idiom, but I'd suggest either "He had worked previously…" or "Before that, he had worked…"
 * --GA
 * "was a few weeks later" – I don't think we need be told that 2 July is a few weeks later than 30 May.
 * We don't have to, but as until quite recently people thought it was months between beginning as Thomaskantor and performamce, it doesn't hurt to stress "weeks". --GA
 * Magnificat
 * "Magnificat" – the generic term, rather than Bach's settings: I see you neither italicise the word nor put it in quotation marks. I'm sure this has been carefully considered, but I notice that Grove italicises the term, as does our own Wikipedia article.
 * There was a discussion regarding these Latin well-known terms (Requiem, Te Deum etc), forgot when and where exactly. --GA
 * Trinity Sunday and vespers are WP:OVERLINKs, having already been linked.
 * When Trinity Sunday comes the second time, it's in a list of many feasts - with all others linked. I am not sure if people remember the previous link ;) --GA
 * Composition
 * "Bach likely first performed" – a bit slangy, perhaps. I suggest "Bach probably first performed".
 * taken --GA
 * "Bach wrote Magnificat" – "Bach wrote the Magnificat"?
 * taken --GA
 * Duplicate links: Meine Seele erhebt den Herren and Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV10.
 * good catch! --GA
 * Scoring and structure
 * "Jesu Juva" – "Jesus help" with no punctuation marks doesn't mean anything. I see that the customary English translation is "Jesus, help!", indicating the vocative and imperative, which I recommend.
 * good, also linked now --GA
 * "No. 9 Esurientes" – again, I am surprised at the punctuation" – or rather the lack of it. Doubtless there has been much learned discussion of the point on some other WP page, but as I see it, the MoS (MOS:QUOTETITLE) bids us put the constituent numbers of the Magnificat in double quotes.
 * I am not sure I understand what you mean here, --GA
 * Table" – as you use the Alla breve and common time symbols, you might like to consider using the time-signature templates for the others: giving, e.g., or.
 * I considered but thought they would not really add to the meaning and look needlessly bold, --GA
 * The twelve movements of the Magnificat canticle
 * "The MoS warns us off definite articles in headers, but at GA I'm not taking issue with it; if you go on to FAC you may want to review it.
 * In this case it sets the twelve apart from the four for Christmas, - how would you recommend to solve that? --GA
 * 1.
 * "they sing the first word Magnificat anima mea" – that's three words. Just pruning the "anima mea" will make the phrase make sense. And I really do think you need quotes round "Magnificat" here, as you are quoting it; likewise later in the paragraph" – and why is Dominum in italics? My comments on putting the individual sections and, a fortiori, individual words in quotes applies to the rest of your text.
 * Sorry I forgot to delete anima mea" when copying. Quotation marks taken, --GA
 * 2.
 * "Savior" – as you have used English spelling so far, better to make this "Saviour".
 * Well, I copied from the American source which I quote, - unsure if I can change, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were in quotes as what the grammarians call oratio directa you would be right to leave it in the original spelling, but when you are recycling someone else's prose – perfectly legitimately as here – the MoS bids you bring it into line with the prevailing usage of the rest of the article.
 * learning more, changed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "A note in the autograph requests to insert the first Christmas interpolation" – another suggested tweak to be idiomatic here: " A note in the autograph requests the insertion of the first Christmas interpolation"
 * yes, better --GA
 * 3.
 * "Hogwood notes:" – better to make this "Hogwood writes" or something similar. "Notes" implies that the statement is an accepted fact rather than an opinion.
 * learning --GA
 * "and comments that the limited resources of one wind instrument and the voice have "a subservient feel to it." – plural nouns and verbs with singular pronoun. You could most easily remedy this by writing "and comments that the use of limited resources of one wind instrument and the voice has "a subservient feel to it."
 * helpful --GA
 * "Steinberg notes" – more noting where commenting would be preferable.
 * "in "an internalised dialogue", describes Hogwood" – not idiomatic. Perhaps "in what Hogward describes as "an internalised dialogue"?
 * copied, but leaves the following "expecting" - still Hogwood - a bit in the air --GA
 * 5.
 * "For the Mighty One has done great things for me" – I can't say I like this translation much. The traditional English version, "For he that is mighty hath magnified me" is closer to the Latin of the Vulgate, though you could argue that "done great things for me" is better for modern readers than "magnified".
 * It's the translation which I otherwise follow consistently. We could offer the alternative also, with a ref please. KJV? --GA
 * requests to insert" – as above, suggest "requests the insertion of"
 * yes --GA
 * 6.
 * "Jones points out" – remarks, observes or similar would be better, for the same reason as "notes" is better avoided for individual opinions.
 * taken --GA
 * "shows "full of pathos" – "shows" should be "is".
 * taken --GA
 * 7.
 * "ad dotte" – looks Italian, but is, I imagine, a typo for "and dotted"
 * ;) --GA
 * "and repeated 16th" – is there a word such as "notes" missing after 16th? (Excuse my ignorance: I was brought up on semiquavers)
 * I was brought up on "Sechzehntel" without "-noten" ;) - taken. --GA
 * "('dispersit' in favour of a highly…" – there's a closing bracket missing somewhere here.
 * yes, fixed --GA
 * "requests to insert" – as above, suggest "requests the insertion of"
 * yes --GA
 * 8.
 * There are more italics here for individual words in contrast with other paras where similar individual words are not italicised. I really think you need to make your practice consistent throughout.
 * now decided for quotation marks, - please let me know where missing --GA
 * We have "motiv" in this section and again in the next; elsewhere it is "motif". Consistency, please.
 * good catch --GA
 * "unison" is a duplicate link.
 * unison is linked more than once but what about readers who don't read continuously? --GA
 * "requests to insert" – as above. (Sorry to bang on about this, but in idiomatic English "request to [verb]" can only be used transitively and needs an object. You can request me/her/them to insert, but you can't request to insert.)
 * 9.
 * Duplicate link of "cantata".
 * no more --GA
 * 10.
 * Duplicate links of "unison" (again) and "cantus firmus". (We might bend the rules and allow the duplicate link for the latter, perhaps, as its first mention was many paragraphs earlier.)
 * see above --GA
 * 11.
 * Duplicate link of "fugue".
 * no more --GA
 * 12.
 * "Glory to the father" – as you follow the convention of capitalising "He" and other mentions of God, I'd be inclined to capitalise "Father" here. It is certainly capitalised in the Book of Common Prayer, even though "He" is not.
 * same question if I should change the source --GA
 * "was used by Monteverdi already" – better as "had already been used by Monteverdi".
 * "Jones remarks that Bach" – I got lost here and had to re-read from the start of the sentence. Could you make the structure of the sentence clearer by replacing the commas with parenthetic dashes between "pattern" and "a bipartite" and "triple time" and "again"?
 * tried to split sentence --GA
 * The four Christmas interpolations
 * Duplicate links to "Martin Luther", "Annunciation to the shepherds" and "motifs".
 * one changed, 2 dropped --GA
 * Reception history
 * There's no obligation at GAN level to be comprehensive, but for FAC you'll need a few sentences of summary of the linked article. For present purposes, however, the bare link will suffice.
 * Recording table
 * "Weihcnachtsvesper" – I assume this should be Weihnachtsvesper, but I didn't want to risk changing it.
 * fixed ;) --GA
 * Sources
 * These could do with a bit of tidying up:
 * No ISBNs for Rutter's Magnificat or Glöckner's book
 * Retrieval date for Wolff's book (unnecessarily, as we know the publication date).
 * dropped
 * Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach: Magnificat" – not linked.
 * will look --GA
 * Several redundant retrieval dates for sources that have details of their publication date. (There's no harm in having both, but you should be consistent – all or none.)
 * I add accessdates for web sources. because they might get lost, and add a year for them for harv. How to solve that? --GA


 * Excellent observations. The Latin started out italic but was converted, please check for consistency. Need a break, RL. The few missing items later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not knowing where to place comments, I placed one here: User talk:Tim riley, I suppose these issues are treated more consistently in the article than the reviewer assumes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! The use of bold and italics is now consistent and clear. This was the only point that stood in the way of promotion. I don't know if you plan to take the article on to FAC, but if so I'd recommend seeking a peer review en route. Happy to join in, in that event.  Tim riley  talk    09:10, 4 July 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:


 * Thank you, made my day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)