Talk:Schwingt freudig euch empor, BWV 36/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 12:15, 9 December 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The oboe picture states "Transferred from en.wikipedia" as a source. Does not make sense actually. If it is the work of the uploader then that should be noted in the table.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The oboe picture states "Transferred from en.wikipedia" as a source. Does not make sense actually. If it is the work of the uploader then that should be noted in the table.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I think "uplift" is not the correct word (I only know it as an economical or geological term, but never heard it in music). Perhaps "upswing" or "rise". I made some minor changes. --Tomcat (7) 21:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC).
 * "Uplifting" is used in connection with music, but I tried to clarify without using it, as it seems not clear enough. It would be one of many ways to translate the title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)