Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 22:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 22:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer review tool
 * WP:LEAD is way too short, it should be three to four paragraphs
 * expanded intro to three paragraphs --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb - if you use the conversion template that will take care of this.
 * is it possible to be a bit more specific on this suggestion? I can't find which part of the article it applies to, or what type of conversion mentioned in the article could be handled by whatever type of template? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - I am not seeing it either, not sure why the tool pointed this out so I am striking it for now. MPJ  -US 15:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), realise (B) (American: realize), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), any more (B) (American: anymore), kerb (B) (American: curb), program (A) (British: programme).
 * If it's OK for everyone I'd go for British English Oxford spelling, and would add that template to the talk page. My considerations are entirely practical: I'm not a native English speaker, and when I'm not sure about how to spell a word I have a OED minidictionary on my desk and look up the word. Otherwise, can someone else take care of this aspect and make the spelling of the article consistent to whatever spelling they think appropriate (...assuming it will never be perfect when done by a non-native speaker)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Contractions in the main text that need to be spelled out; Wasn't, didn't, weren't, aren't, doesn't, can't,


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * The results that it hits on are either credited to wikipedia, or the wikipedia article contained the phrases prior to the other site using the phrases (ex. the youtube video)
 * The rest hit on the fact that it's a long title so that also comes up as a overlapping phrase but I think we're okay here.


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues ✅


 * External links
 * There are four dead links - marked in red in the External Links tool
 * There are three "probably dead" links - marked in orange in the External Links tool
 * There one of the links has a connection issue - marked in blue in the External Links tool
 * addressed (for the "external links" section) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * addressed (for external links in numbered footnotes) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well Written

 * Lead
 * "on author" should be "on the author"
 * "after its creation the only" should be "after its creation, the only"
 * "The piece knew a fairly successful piano version" - I am not sure if "knew" is the right word? Not sure what you're trying to say here.
 * "20th century" should be "20th-century"
 * "analyses has been" should be "analyses have been"
 * "piece, and" should not have the comma


 * History
 * "title page of Ringk's manuscript writes the title" I am not sure the word "writes" is right here?
 * "manuscript the" needs a comma after manuscript
 * "In Ringk's manuscript" needs a comma
 * "was common in the time" should be "was common at the time"
 * "related with each other" should be "related to each other"
 * I think this sentence "Whether these derive from an earlier manuscript independent from Ringk's (possibly in the C. P. E. Bach/Johann Friedrich Agricola/Johann Kirnberger circle) is debated by scholars." could stand to be rewritten.
 * "are more correct in making the note values" - "More correct" is not grammatically correct.
 * "Ringk's copy abounds in" - sounds wrong to me, is there a word missing?


 * I am almost overwhelmed by the amount of detail around the actual composition and you do walk the fine line of going too far, but you stop short of being excessive so good job in that.


 * Performance
 * "execution times of over 10:30[15] exist" not sure "exists" is the appropriate word for a performance.


 * Reception


 * "In the first century of its existence the entire reception history of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor consists of being saved from oblivion by maybe not more than a single manuscript copy." - I know what you are trying to say, but "reception history" is not the way to go about it. May I suggest something along the lines of the sentence below?
 * For the first hundred years after it's creation the Toccata and Fugue in D minor existed in relative obscurity, possibly save by as little as a single manuscript copy"


 * The sentence "The composition's third century took it from Bach's most often recorded organ piece to a composition with an unclear origin." kinda jumps the gun here. That is covered later on. if that sentence is removed the flow is more chronological and logical.
 * The section below is one sentence, not one paragraph, a sentence - Can you please revise it into something more readable?
 * "The composition has been deemed "particularly suited to the organ",[11] and "strikingly unorganistic";[24] It has been seen as united by a single ground-thought,[25] and as containing "passages which have no connection whatever with the chief idea";[11] It has been called "entirely a thing of virtuosity"[26] and "not so difficult as it sounds";[18] It has been described as some sort of program music depicting a storm,[26] and as abstract music, quite the opposite of program music depicting a storm;[27] It has been presented as an emanation of the galant style, yet too dramatic to be anything near that style;[19] Its period of origin has been assumed to have been as early as around 1704,[28] and as late as the 1750s;[7] Its defining characteristics have been associated with extant compositions by Bach (BWV 531, 549a, 578, 911, 914, 922 and several of the solo violin sonatas and partitas),[7][11][29][30][31] and by others (including Nicolaus Bruhns and Johann Heinrich Buttstett),[7] as well as with untraceable earlier versions for other instruments and/or by other composers;[7] It has been deemed too simplistic for it to have been written down by Bach,[7] and too much a stroke of genius to have been composed by anyone else but Bach.[32]"


 * Simply putting it as "the most famous organ work in existence" with a single attribution is a little too close to being biased. Unless the book states more opinions than just the authors?
 * Is the term "bombastic" actually in the source?


 * Score editions
 * "the first world war Augener" needs a comma after "war" and shouldn't it be "World War"?
 * "In 1950 the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis had been published: it was no longer needed to indicate the Toccata and Fugue in D minor as Peters Vol. IV, No. 4, as BGA Volume XV p. 267, as Novello VI, 1, or without "Dorian" to distinguish it from the Toccata and Fugue with the same key signature: hence it was simply BWV 565, and the other, the so-called Dorian, was BWV 538." a bit long, and a bit vague - why was it no longer needed?
 * "BWV 565 this means staying close" should be past tense "meant"


 * Performances and recordings
 * "BWV 565 is listed as last piece" should that be "the last piece"?
 * "best known" should be "best-known"
 * "In a 1928 concert program Schweitzer" needs a comma after "program"
 * "in the 1960s BWV 565 became listed first" should be "was listed first"
 * " seemed faster in putting" should be "seemed to be faster to put"
 * "Also musicians" needs a comma after "Also"
 * "In the 21st century several", comma after "century"


 * Piano arrangements
 * "already indicated that performance on the piano by one or two players was possible." - reword to something along the lines of "already indicated that it was possible for one or two payers t perform it on the piano"


 * In Bach's biographies
 * "Bach the work" needs a comma after "Bach"
 * "biography it" comma after biography
 * "his his Bach biography" two "his"es
 * "In the form of the Toccata he saw more north German characteristics (Buxtehude's restless style) than south German (Pachelbel's simple and quiet approach)" order is off; should be something along the lines of "He saw more north German characteristics (Buxtehude's restless style) than south German (Pachelbel's simple and quiet approach) in the form of the Toccata"
 * " the piece refers to" time change should be "referred to" as everything else is past tense
 * "first version of his Bach biography Albert" comma after "biography"


 * In books on Bach's organ works
 * "All in all he judges" needs a comma after the second "all"


 * In film
 * "Its first uses in sound film" - how about "early uses" since only the first use is the first you know?
 * There does not appear to be any reference to its use as the opening theme of the 1975 film Rollerball.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.56.154 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Authenticity research and reconstructions
 * "the late 1970s the" needs a comma after "1970s"
 * "analysed" should be analyzed"
 * "18th century" should be "18th-century"
 * "likely as composer of" should be "likely as the composer of"


 * Attribution question
 * This seems like it should be included in the previous section, it basically repeats the question of who wrote it.
 * The repetition of Williams does not make sense, already stated above already. should be combined into one section.


 * Anterior version hypothesis and reconstructions
 * This seems to be yet another section on "who wrote it", why are there multiple sections on the same thing? it is starting to feel a little redundant and should not be yet another section. Combine and steamline it a little.
 * Other media
 * This could all be included with the information from the earlier section of "performances and recordings"?

Sources/verifiable

 * Reference 5 needs more information in the citation, such as accessdate etc.
 * Same for the following
 * 21.
 * 46
 * 58
 * 59
 * 60
 * 62
 * 66
 * 67
 * 74
 * 75
 * 77
 * 78
 * 98
 * 99
 * 101
 * 102
 * 103
 * 104
 * 105
 * 120
 * 135
 * 136
 * 137
 * 138
 * 139
 * 140
 * addressed – see also introduction to Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 (references section). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For accessibility reasons the tables that have a background color must also have a symbol to help those that are colorblind,
 * addressed with footnotes in the table --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Broad in coverage

 * Yes ✅

Stable

 * With all the feedback I got I do believe the content dispute on the page has been resolved and we're okay here. ✅

Illustrated / Images

 * File:Rincgk 01.jpg - has some tag issues listed on the page, please try to address those
 * addressed --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * File:T&F opening.gif - Needs a US Public domain tag
 * addressed --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Rincgk 02.gif - has some tag issues listed on the page, please try to address those
 * addressed --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

 * I am seeing a lot of references to Peter Williams and there are multiple references on the talk page to this from 2010, apparently Williams is not exactly a reliable source or a fringe theory but is given a lot of presence in the article before me
 * ,, , , - You all made comments on the talk page, do you still believe the coverage is out of proportion?
 * Anyone else who may have an opinion are welcome to join in. I think right now this is a problem with the article and needs to be properly discussed. I will ping the projects listed on the talk page to get a discussion.

I am putting the review on hold until I can get some opinions from people who know the subject matter better than me.  MPJ  -US 21:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's OK for everyone I'd centralise that discussion at Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Question
Is it OK to inform about updates in between the comments (like I did above in ), or does the reviewer prefer I keep these replies separate? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I am fine with replies in between comments, no worries.  MPJ  -US 15:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - Since the neutrality question has been answered I went ahead and completed my review of the article. So let me know when you believe the article is to the point where it can be reviwed again. Good luck.  MPJ  -US 22:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tx, will attend to issues ASAP. Apart from the issues regarding use of the English language. I'm no native English speaker, and that's rather something I hope someone else would address: I do the best I can, but don't think I'll get the flow of sentences just right, smooth, compelling to read, encyclopedical-sounding etc. In short, that's one of the reasons why I put an article up as GAC, so that it gets a thorough checking from someone else because I know that's not my forte. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (watching:) Another way would be to ask for copy-editing first. My personal advisor is Corinne, and I have friends who are native English speakers, but you can also request help by the Guild of copy-editors, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the comment on English - the problem with putting up for GAC to get improvements is that it's really supposed to be Good Article quality when nominated instead of putting it on the reviewer to improve the article. I agree with the Guild of Copy Editors suggestion, that is the purpose of the group.  MPJ  -US 23:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - I noticed that there has not been a lot of activity on this one recently. If you're uncomfortable making the English language improvements I can fail the current version and you can take the article to the League of Copyeditors and have them help you address my comments and anything else they may find, then submit it for GA again? Just sitting here inactive is not helping and I got to usher this along.  MPJ  -US 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. Hope someone else takes it up and takes it to GAN next time (I mean: doesn't have to be me). Tx for the efforts, but I'm too caught up in other stuff currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright then I will mark it as failed.  MPJ  -US 08:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)