Template:Did you know nominations/Mass in B minor structure

Mass in B minor structure

 * ... that towards the end of his life, Johann Sebastian Bach compiled from earlier and new music his Mass in B minor and structured it in four parts?
 * Comment: will review and add

Created/expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nom at 08:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * reviewed: Colostethus palmatus, Colostethus agilis --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a slightly better formatting of this hook be "... that towards the end of his life, Johann Sebastian Bach compiled from earlier and new music his Mass in B minor and structured it in four parts?" The current link looks a bit awkward. Also I'm not even sure this article shouldn't be merged with the article on the B minor itself. Abyssal (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also not sure about a merge, see talk of the Mass. The article came into being because the other one is so questionable. DYK might raise awareness for the need to improve it ;) - I don't like the link to only "structured" at all, the Mass is the topic. - We had similar DYK for Messiah (see talk for the hooks), created to "unload" unwanted details from the FA Messiah (Handel), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the B minor article is alot shorter than Messiah. I'm also not sure about the idea of starting a new forked article because of problems with the original. Also, the message on the talk page isn't really clarifying things much for me. I admit that I don't know anything in particular about classical music, I'm not trying to obstruct your nomination, I just want to perform due diligence as a reviewer here since som aspects of this nomination seem fishy. Abyssal (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * English is not my first language, please explain fishy. I asked on the talk of the Mass that the tempo markings not by Bach please be removed. This was in 2010, nothing happened. So I started the table that has the tempo markings by Bach, no other, and a lot of additional information, like the scoring for each individual movement. I think this should be known, and DYK is one way to do so. I would like to add more on individual movements, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When I said "fishy" I meant that it seems like the creation of this page may not agree well with site policy. Abyssal (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

3O
 * I wouldn't call this a dispute like it says in the template, but I think someone else should come and look at this nomination. Abyssal (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't use a template that you yourself don't think fits well, but raise a question at WT:DYK, possibly after I added more, and after you looked at The Creation and The Creation structure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also compare Franz Kafka and Franz Kafka works, and consider that Mass in B minor discography was already a separate article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How could I possibly forget St Matthew Passion structure, appeared on Good Friday 2012, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I'm against articles on the structure of classical pieces, I'm saying I'm not sure this shouldn't be a section within the original article, which was too short to justify creating spin off articles. Abyssal (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I have to agree with Abyssal. This article is essentially a split from Mass in B minor, not really new content. Given the extensive overlap between this article and the main article about the Mass (which is not excessively long), it's difficult to justify treating this as a separate article. --Orlady (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * fine with me, I will expand much later as promised (but if you think it's no new content look a bit closer please), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mostly it's duplication of subject matter. The content is different, but this article covers some of the same subject-matter territory as that other article -- and it doesn't go much beyond the scope of that article. --Orlady (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's the start to replace the former, which I questioned in 2010 (see talk), and nothing happened. It will take a few months. I don't care about this DYK, the B Minor Mass is my long time pet project ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)