Talk:St John Passion structure

Dedication
I began this article thinking of GFHandel, whose help on the structure article of Messiah by his namesake I appreciate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

First sentence
This needs to be more than just pointing to a later part of the article. How about something from ? Myrvin (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't read the linked book. Do you address this article, or perhaps St John Passion? Anyway, improvements welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

New first sentence
Moved from User talk:Myrvin

Your addition - about the history of understanding of the structure - doesn't belong as the very first line of the structure article, it should be in the history of the work, see talk. - No reference in a lead, please, which is a summary of what comes later with references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I cannot agree with you. As I said in the Talk page, the article needs a proper introductory sentence that explains why the article exists. I suggest you read WP:lead. It says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects," and "The lead should establish significance ... and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." It shouldn't start by just pointing to a later part of the article. There is no WP rule that you shouldn't have references in the lead - millions of articles do this.  I note that William Waterhouse (bassoonist) and Aloys and Alfons Kontarsky, with which you have had dealings, have references. So do Mozart, Joseph Haydn, and the St John Passion itself. I do think there should be more about what the St John Passion is in the lead. Maybe that could be the first line, or added to my first line. Myrvin (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at that. Myrvin (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for changing. I was (too) short, sorry for that. Normally, a lead should be a summary for sourced facts later in the article, for example BWV 172 where the only citations are for quotations. Please try that here also, by inserting a paragraph about history of perception of the structure. I am surprised by "explains why the article exists", - no other article I know explains why it exists. (This one exists because I would have a problem to insert a infobox in the main article.)
 * Those were my words. As I said WP:lead says "The lead should establish significance," and all articles should do this. So, it needs to say why would anyone want to write or read the article. In this case, if the structure was very simple and  uninteresting, someone could ask why the article should exist and propose deleting it. By saying - as my source did - that it has "musico-theological intent", that tends to suggest that it is of interest.
 * My original citation WAS for a quote. The new one, stolen from the Passion article, establishes a source for it being an oratorio, and giving its BWV number. Did you get the quote thing from WP:CITELEAD? If not, you should read it. Myrvin (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Revisions
Why did my revisions of this article get eliminated? Dgljr5121973 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know which ones you mean (please provide a diff). - Just know I improved two items with a disambiguator: you don't leave Organ (music) but pipe-link organ. I wonder why you would mention organ at all, because it's normal in the continuo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Because in Version III, the Organ is a solo instrument in Movement 19. Also Movement 27c has both the Evangelist and Jesus. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Issues as of February 2017
Small issues which I noticed while revising the article, yesterday: 1. The details specific to each version would require inline citations (ex: "There are no extant Flute parts for this version, so the movements that normally require them have violins instead") per WP:SYN - if there are no sources which combine the information in the way presented (even if the deduction is trivial), then it's OR. I'm sure a good look through the multiple books about Bach would provide adequate citations; (ex. Christopher Wolff's book on Bach, 2013 edition, p. 294 which has several comments about the piece and it's revisions) 2. The tables could require some reworking. Currently they add excessive length to the article. A good way to do it would be something similar to St Mark Passion (attributed to Keiser). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Chorales
How can we best include the bach-chorales.com website? Example http://www.bach-chorales.com/BWV0245_14.htm for movement 14. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)