Template:Did you know nominations/Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131

Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131

 * ... that Bach's cantata Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131, based on Psalm 130 "Out of the deep", is one of his earliest extant cantatas, composed in Mühlhausen?
 * Comment: Bach cantata for no known occasion

Created/expanded by Thoughtfortheday (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 09:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that Johann Sebastian Bach (pictured) composed in Mühlhausen the cantata Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131, based on Psalm 130 "Out of the deep", one of his earliest extant cantatas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT2: ... that Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131, one of Johann Sebastian Bach's earliest cantatas, shows that the young composer was experimenting with ways to use chorale tunes in his work? -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Article date and 5x expansion verified. There are a couple of paragraphs lacking inline citations though. ALT1 and 2 are verified, but I couldn't find the source for ALT3. Yazan (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article for someone else who will hopefully reply, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll leave a note on the creator's talk page, just in case he's not watching this one. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hallo. Thanks for the headsup.  One of the existing sources (Craig Smith) says a little about the treatment of chorales.  (He is too negative about the cantata imo, but that is another issue).  I have added another source which is quite interesting (but perhaps not as authoritative as could be.) -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Thoughtfortheday, the problem is DYK rules specify that the hook must be mentioned explicitly in the article and have an inline citation at the end. I can't see anything that resembles the meaning of "experimenting with the chorale" in the article (do point it out if I'm mistaken). Furthermore, the "Singer" subsection only has one inline citation and it only cites 2 sentences, which leaves the rest of the two paragraphs cited. We require a minimum of one citation per paragraph. Yazan (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining the rules about hooks. I think I should withdraw the proposed hook in question, as it was too much in my own words.  I could add some more musical analysis to the article, but it would probably look more like a "blow by blow" account of the work.


 * I am sorry I hadn't responded to your earlier point about supporting citations. Again, thanks for the explanation.  This shouldn't be a problem, as I have tried not to depart from the known facts about the work, but I will need to put in the citations a bit later. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now put in some more citations in response to the review. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks for the prompt response. After dealing with the minor issues, the article is good to go for either the original hook or ALT1, I struck ALT2 to avoid confusion. ALT1 reads better, to me personally. Yazan (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I am happy to leave any further decisions to you and Gerda. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both! I prefer ALT1, a rare occasion to show young Bach ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm pulling this back for two reasons. First, the image is sourced from a website that shows the portrait as part of a convincing argument that this is not, in fact, a picture of the young Bach. To use it as an image of Bach therefore seems to have dubious justification. Second, ALT1 is confusing: the way it reads, the psalm is one of Bach's earlier cantatas, which makes no sense. Between these two significant problems, it seemed best to deal with the issues back here rather than in a prep area, especially as this was a lead hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another issue with this nomination: few of the hook facts have inline citations after the sentences that contain them. "Psalm 130" itself never gets an inline citation, and "Out of the Deep" does not appear in the article at all: both must be cited in the article to be used. Likewise, the direct statement of the fact that it was composed in Mühlhausen does not have an immediate inline source. (You could claim it from the "early in his stay there" sentence, but better to also source the first sentence in "History and words".) Assuming these are fixed, I'm going to suggest a rewording of ALT1 as ALT3 that is clearer, though I've not included "(pictured)" for obvious reasons:
 * ALT3: ... that one of Johann Sebastian Bach's earliest cantatas, composed in Mühlhausen, was Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131, based on Psalm 130 ("Out of the deep")? —BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I copied the pic - without looking at the description - from respected pages such as 18th century and other early Bach cantatas where no doubt is mentioned, I also knew it from books. - The article is interesting, and the article on Bach shows it with "disputed", so let's use that to make it more interesting or drop it . What do you think of
 * ALT4: ... that Johann Sebastian Bach (disputed portrait pictured) based one of his earliest extant cantatas, Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131, on Psalm 130 ("Out of the deep")?


 * ALT5: ... that Johann Sebastian Bach composed the cantata Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131, as a young organist at Mühlhausen's Divi Blasii church (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would frankly drop the disputed portrait. ALT5 looks generally good, but the article needs the inline citation I mentioned above after the first sentence of "History and words". (I've removed the italics for "Divi Blasii" per MOS:Ety.) I think I would change the word order at the end to "at Mühlhausen's Divi Blasii church (pictured)?" ALT4, minus the picture, would be fine once citation(s) covering Psalm 130 and "Out of the Deep" have been added. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am happy to go with the ALT5 (about the church). I hope the citations are adequate.  As you probably know, psalms are often called by their first line.  This one is perhaps best known by its first line in Latin, but I didn't want to bring in a third language. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very close, and thanks for the edits. What we don't have yet is a citation after the "Divi Blasii" sentence. I'm not entirely sure what you could use–the Oxford Companion article calls the church "Blasiuskirche", and I can't get to the bach-cantatas.com site at the moment–but a citation that uses the "Divi Blasii" name as a place Bach worked is a must if you want to use that form of it. The psalm is now cited after the sentence about the title, which is fine; however, I can't help but note that the only translation of the title is in the intro, and it's called "From the depths..." not "Out of the deep": I think that the article and hook need to agree about the English translation if we go with the original hook or ALTs 3 or 4 if we wish "Out of the deep" to be used in them. (We could drop the English altogether; most translations seem to start with "Out of the depths", which is different from both of these. I think you're probably right about not introducing "De profundis" to the mix.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You probably will not trust the German Wikipedia, but perhaps the parish's website, about Bach. (Careful about their English, saying "curch") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gerda, it's not a matter of trust, it's what's permissible and what isn't. Intra-Wikipedia citations are never considered reliable sources. However, the sources used by the other article are always usable if they can be accessed. The parish website is fine, and I think the article in English at the parish's website (here) has everything one could possibly need, both about the name Divi Blasii and about Bach at the church. (There's even, unusually, an author credit at the bottom of the page!) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came as too personally, I meant a plural "you", - after hunting (almost) all day for sources to a translated German article, - now a German author who didn't give a source when he entered something in 2009 and didn't find the newspapers in question ordered a book from a library ;) - I am happy that we could resolve a first nomination here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy too. Sorry that the plural didn't occur to me, and that I got didactic: sometimes I wish some of these rules weren't in the way, even as I see why they were made. As soon as the new source can be added in the right place, I'll be happy to approve ALT5. (Since I'd be the approver, I shouldn't also be the adder, alas. But we're almost there!) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have put in the church website source and have linked the English translation of the incipit to the wiki article on the psalm. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Approved for ALT5 only (having moved "church" two word later in the hook as mentioned above); I have struck the other hooks and deleted the original picture used by them because of the unlikelihood that the image is of Bach and because the translations of the psalm in the hooks does not match the article. I am also going to revert the intro (only) to its original form, because the detailed translation information is inappropriate in the intro (if necessary, it should be in the body), and because a quick survey of several Bach cantata articles show that the format of bold italic German title followed by the unbold translation is standard for such articles, and this one should not deviate from standard without a good reason. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the approval. I am sure you are right to restore the lede. I have however put in some material about translation of "depths/deep" in the main body.  I hope this is OK. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have "deep" in my ears, probably because you can sing it better ;) (and the German is a singular.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)