Talk:St John Passion structure/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 16:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well-written Symbol support vote.svg

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
 * Verifiable with no original research Symbol support vote.svg

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research
 * I know not all sentences on Wikipedia needs sourcing, but this article contains entire sections and tables completely un-sourced. Am I to believe that none theses sections needs references? It's almost half of the entire article! - Problem fixed. - JV


 * Broad in its coverage Symbol support vote.svg

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
 * Neutral Symbol support vote.svg

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
 * Stable Symbol support vote.svg

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
 * Illustrated Symbol support vote.svg

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * Pass, fail or hold? Symbol support vote.svg
 * I'm going to put the article on hold and give the GA-nominator a chance to comment on all these un-sourced sections. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I reworded the lead, stressing more that it is about the structure, and moving a quotation to later in the article. About the referencing: the table is a result of reading the score, as you look at a picture and can tell something is blue without a secondary source telling you. The story is in the bible, like a plot. Plots don't need references. The names of authors and years when texts were written are in the Ambrose source. The numbers and names of movements (on top of being in the score) are listed in the online score summaries, example. The table would look more complicated with refs applied to each field. - If you look at the table you see for example that all chorales are in common time. - Compare Mass in B minor structure and tell me what else you would need. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To look at a score, I recommend the NBA, Bärenreiter, Studienpartitur. I feel that I should not provide the link to the pdf, because it would bypass the copyright disclaimers of the free scores' library. I also think page numbers would not be as helpful as the movement numbers provided, because readers of different scores can follow better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gerda, the article is better and more clear now. Good job. just one last thing: the file Brockes.jpg has a ((PD-Art)) template without license parameter, it needs to be fixed. When that's done, I will pass the article. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By fixed, do you mean no pic or get the license? I have limited access, will try the latter, but please feel free to remove if I don't succeed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gerda, just remove it if you cant "fix" it, that way I know if u can succeed or not. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)