Talk:O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165/GA1

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

Reviewer: RHM22 (talk · contribs) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I just finished reading and reviewing your article. I have presented a few notes below for your consideration. I really enjoyed the article, and it's nearly just right for GA status.-RHM22 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reading so soon. I was ready to polish a bit more, - now I have your great help, thank you! --GA


 * 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):
 * This sentence in the lede section: "Based on a text by the court poet Salomo Franck who stayed close to the prescribed Gospel about the meeting of Jesus and Nicodemus, he set ideas beginning with "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"." is very confusing. Could that be reworded to make it a bit more clear? It's easy to understand later in the article, but I would be left confused if I only read the lede. Also, I usually like to put the first letter of a quote (if it's capitalized in the original) inside brackets, like "[f]our score and seven years ago...", but that is just a personal preference.
 * tried a simple summary, if too simple, say so. --GA
 * It looks good, except for one part: "...court poet Salomo Franck who stayed close to the prescribed Gospel..." It's unclear who or what the subject is. If the subject is the text, then it should be "...court poet Salomo Franck, which stayed close to the prescribed Gospel..." In other words, it's unclear if you're saying that Franck was a devout man who closely followed the Gospels, or if his writing (the text) closely follows the wording of the Gospel.-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As a minor note, I would probably delink the numbers in the table (which currently link to other sections of the article). That seems to be discouraged by the MOS, and it's not really necessary anyway.
 * They are linked in the two articles which have tables of movements, BWV 12 and BWV 22. --GA
 * As long as that is accepted precedent in other classical music articles, then it's fine by me.-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the fourth movement (I have indeed, o bridegroom of my soul), is 'O' purposefully left uncapitalized? It's usually capitalized in the same way 'I' would be.
 * It's copied from the source. --GA
 * Seems fine, then. 'O' is usually capitalized, but it's not a rule and not everyone does it.-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the fifth movement, there is a quote from Whittaker, but no one named Whittaker is mentioned anywhere else in the article.
 * Perhaps you can advise - or I will ask friends: Gardiner (whom I quote) quotes him, mentioning only his last name (as if everyone knew ...). I have not yet found out who, - not one of Wikipedia's Whittakers. Can you phrase that? --GA
 * Hm, that's a tough one. Do you think it could be this fellow?-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good find, but unlikely, composer not musicologist. Will ask Tim. the one! - looks like he deserves an article here also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Reference 10 (Grob, 2012) isn't in the bibliography, but Grob, 2014 is.
 * Thanks, fixed. (Thou shalt not copy ...) --GA
 * Thanks, fixed. (Thou shalt not copy ...) --GA


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is focused and covers the subject concisely and thoroughly.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The topic is presented neutrally without bias or POV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable, with no apparent edit wars or conflicts.
 * 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):
 * The images presented in the article are, suitable, public domain and are correctly and appropriately captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is mostly well-written and cited to reliable sources. However, I have a few concerns, which I have presented above. The GAN is currently on hold.-RHM22 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Very helpful, thank you. Will go to FA after adding background and more detail on the music. 300 years this year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda: It looks good, except for a couple remaining (minor) quibbles, which I've stated above.-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, great, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, it looks good to me now. Another editor restored some of the original text to the lede, but I changed it to make clear the subject, so it's all right as it is. I think this is ready to pass.-RHM22 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)