Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165

 * Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Bach's cantata O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165, written for Trinity Sunday of 1715, 300 years ago which attracted me. I thank RHM22 for an inspiring GA review. I recently added a table of the cantatas written that year, details about the situation in Weimar which is not covered in Bach nor the other Weimar cantata, BWV 172, and more about the music. I confess that I don't feel that the article is "ready", - I spent more time on women's history month and articles for the Holy Week than I had anticipated. Looking at a possible TFA day on Trinity Sunday this year, 31 May, I hope that we can manage the needed polishing together. "Hope" begins the first header on my talk ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

 * Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with an of my comments:
 * Thank you for ce, much appreciated! --GA


 * The text sometimes uses the serial comma ("two violins, viola, and continuo") and sometimes not ("a summary scripture, baptism and the Eucharist")
 * It's a feature I am regularly not sure about, but also not passionate. Feel free to change. --GA
 * Having looked: I used before continuo, because that comes with a clause only for continuo, not the rest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * He composed it ... and first performed it on 16 June 1715: in the body it says he "led the first performance" on that date.
 * "first performed" is short for the later "led the performance from the concert master position, playing the first violin". --GA
 * changed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  the first half of the liturgical year : why does "liturgical year" link to Church cantata (Bach)?
 * Because that article was originally named "List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function", Will be more specific, good point." --GA
 * done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * which mentions as a summary scripture, baptism and the Eucharist.: does this mean scripture, baptism and the Eucharist are mentioned as a summary? Or does "summary scripture" have some special meaning?
 * It mentions the three in the first line, and is thus a summary of the topic of the cantata. How would you word that? --GA
 * I tried now, changing word order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on the text full of images: literal images?
 * No, the images baroque lyric uses, such as the serpent. --GA
 * Will expand on the poets language and then probably say "Baroque imagery" in the lead, unless you have a better idea


 * the Weimar court capelle: is there a good link for "capelle"?
 * Our article is court chapel, this I think is in quote, will check. --GA


 * "a newly defined rank order": quotes require attribution—but is there some reason this should be quoted?
 * Yes, to not paraphrase the source too closely --GA
 * Sorry, by attribution I mean the text has to say who said it—a citation doesn't tell you whose quote it was, because the source may be quoting someone else. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I copied the ref from the end of the sentence to the phrase, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that, when you have a quote, you have to say in the text who said it ("So-and-so said xxx" or "According to So-and-so, xxx"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * sometimes you provide the English term with a German gloss in parentheses, and sometimes the other way around. Any reason?
 * Yes, when the German is understandable in the prose but some people may need a translation I use it first, when it is only a help to be recognizable as the same thing, I like it second, + I am not the most consistent of people. --GA


 * has been described as "congenial and intimate": needs attribution
 * Done. --GA


 * led the performances as the first violinists: should "violinists" not be singular?
 * Yes, typo, done --GA


 * Sein Wort, sein Tauf, sein Nachtmahl dient wider allem Unfall, der Heilge Geist im Glauben lehr uns darauf vertrauen.: a translation would be nice
 * It is in the source, and how about copyright? --GA
 * I added a translation. However, I think mine is closer to the German. It's just above the poem ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean having the translation looks good, or the translation looks good? German is free in word order, "der Heilge Geist im Glauben lehr uns darauf vertrauen" means "der Heilge Geist lehre uns im Glauben darauf [zu] vertrauen." which translates to "the Holy Spirit may teach us to trust in this in faith", which is not exactly "the Holy Spirit in faith teaches us to rely upon them" ("may teach", not "teaches" - "in faith" belongs to the speaker, not to the Holy Spirit - "darauf" means "in this" = the whole statement = trust that the three elements mentioned will help in all need", not "rely upon" the three elements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My German is too basic to know if it's an accurate translation, but the English version reads well. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It may read well, but I tried to explain the three things where it isn't what the German says, - and can't be if meter and word order are to be kept. It's one of the reasons cantata articles normally don't show any text and translation. There are several on the Bach-cantatas site, to different languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I was just hoping for something that could give the reader a general understanding of the text, which otherwise will be gibberish to most readers. I don't think it's that important.  If you're worried, maybe you could put it into an endnote? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The general understanding is/was above the poem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There was some misunderstanding here that Gerda and I worked out on my talk page. The translation above has been replaced with another. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I made some changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm ready to support on prose. I don't have the kind of knowledge to tell if the article is truly comprehensive, etc., so I'll leave that to editors knowledgeable in the subject to decide. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88
Comment. I had quite an enjoyable time reading this article while following the score and a recording (I chose Rilling). I have decided to "comment" rather than "support" or "oppose" because I do not have prior experience assessing articles against the Featured Article Criteria, but I hopefully have some useful things to say:
 * Lovely feeling to have induced some enjoyable time! --GA
 * General response: the lead is probably the last section to be finalized. In about 200 cantata articles including two featured articles and several good articles, "2 violins" means 2 parts, not 2 players - there can be more. Vocal parts the same, soprano can be more than one singer. If you look at the performance venue and see the list of seven singers, you may agree that for just one chorale Bach likely didn't get more voices than the four present anyway. This is NOT voting for one voice on a part for all works in all venues, I think. Leipzig is not Weimar, other places around the world are not the Himmelsburg.
 * Feel free to make changes yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead states “The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for a small ensemble of four vocal soloists, two violins, viola, and continuo including cello and bassoon.” The bassoon part is written to double the continuo part: as you later say, it never has an independent role.  However, the doubling is only in particular sections and there are minor ornamental differences, so I don’t think it is correct to say that it is ‘’included’’ in the continuo part.  It is probably acceptable for the cello which seems to be in concordat with the continuo at all times.  I would suggest, subject to my second and third bullet points below, “The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for a small ensemble of four vocal soloists, two violins, viola, cello, bassoon and continuo.”  That would be more consistent with the later sentence in the article: “The cantata in six movements is scored like chamber music for … bassoon (Fg), cello (Vc) and basso continuo (Bc).” Here, in this later sentence, the continuo, bassoon and cello parts are considered separate, which I think is more correct.
 * The second quibble that I have with that sentence in the lead is that it takes the side of the one-voice-per-part movement with the suggestion that the four vocal soloists are the only vocalists within the “small ensemble”. OVPP is highly debatable. A later sentence in the article – “The cantata in six movements is scored like chamber music for four vocal soloists (soprano, alto, tenor and bass), a four-part choir (SATB)” – is better because it is agnostic as to how many voices there would be to each part in the concluding chorale.
 * done in the lead, feel free to add precision to the scoring --GA


 * The third quibble with that sentence, and also with the later sentence, is whether the work scored for "two violins" and "viola", as the article says, or "two violin parts and violas" (and "cellos"). Even Jeggy adopts a large string section at times: see http://www.classical-music.com/feature/meet-artists/sir-john-eliot-gardiner. It might be better to name the parts for which the work is scored and say nothing about how many instruments there are to each part. (Now you see why I sided with Rilling, who I suspect is armed with string forces around the 6-6-4-3 mark.)
 * called "vocal parts" now in the lead --GA


 * Movement 1: The article says that the B theme is the reverse of the A theme. Inverse is the accurate term here, as reflected in the quoted passage from Alfred Dürr. I don’t know how one “reverses” music: by playing it backwards? What Bach is doing in the B theme is inverting the A theme such that ascents become descents and vice versa.  I would also mention that the inversion is not complete: as I read the score, only the first two measures of the A theme are inverted before the B theme takes a rather different course.
 * go ahead, add this and the following, or I will later --GA


 * Movement 1: There seems to be to be another symmetrical aspect to the movement: both the opening and closing ritornelli are fugues.
 * Movement 3: might “four phrases” be better than “four sections”?
 * not sure, because "phrasing" has also a different meaning, but open --GA


 * My apologies if there is a clear and obvious answer to this question - What are the criteria upon which the “Selected recordings” are identified?
 * The recordings were given as simple lists before I even started to look at Bach's cantatas in 2010. They are based on the listing on bach-cantatas. BWV 22 has a table instead.
 * Thank you for listening and good comments, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that I see that other more experienced contributors have supported this article, I am confident enough to support despite my earlier hesitant comment. I would, however, condition that support on making the instrumentation and reverse-inverse changes that I mention above. As for the instrumentation, as I interpret it, the term "two violins" can only mean one thing: two people, each playing a violin. Even if that interpretation were open to dispute, ambiguity could be eliminated with the following changes:
 * (Please discuss the "two violins" question with project classical music, - it would change many articles where scoring is given if we had to add "parts" every time.) ---GA


 * Change the first sentence of the third paragraph to "The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for four vocal parts, strings, bassoon and continuo." The term "strings" is both accurate and simple.  Alternatively, if that were deemed too simple, it could say "The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for four vocal parts, two violin parts, cello, bassoon and continuo."
 * "strings" taken ---GA


 * Change the second sentence of "Scoring and structure" in the same or a similar way.
 * hesitating, see also BWV 172 and BWV 22, on top of around 200 other articles for Bach alone ---GA


 * Change the third sentence of the first movement's section to "The theme of B involves an inversion of material from A, that of C is derived from measure 2 of the ritornello."
 * good, taken ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Two out of three is good enough for me, thank you, so I too am happy to support. Thank you for your suggestion about pursuing the "two violins" question with project classical music, but I think I will have to decline. I'm involved in one near-violent Wikipedia argument at the moment. Opening an argument about the appropriate size of an ensemble for Bach's music would be too much! Joshua Rifkin probably needs bodyguards. Syek88 (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

 * The supposed English term "capellmaster" is unknown to me, and more to the point unknown to Grove and the Oxford English Dictionary. It is true that "Kapellmeister" is not in the OED either (though it is in Chambers's), but it is in Grove, and I reckon you'd be much better off sticking with that rather than trying to translate it.
 * It is used by Christoph Wolff who is quite an authority, and readers will find it there. I am willing to change, though, if more voices prefer that. --GA
 * Have you used "capellmaster" in earlier articles? Best let sleeping dogs lie, if so. Otherwise my own strong inclination would be to keep the original. But as you say, let's see if any other editors have an opinion. Whom could we ping for an informed view? Perhaps our Messiah colleague. (Parenthetically, did you know that Karajan habitually put his occupation as "Kapellmeister" in official documents?)  Tim riley  talk    13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't but like to use what the sources say ;) - Will think about it but not today (unless much later), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wolff is undoubtedly an authority on Bach and all things related thereto, but not perhaps of English which isn't his native tongue. I've never seen the word "capellmaster" anywhere; it's a made-up hybrid of Italian and English, and I would prefer to see the more widely known form in its place. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinking: if we use Kapellmeister, we should also say Hofkapelle, Vize-Kapellmeister, Konzertmeister, right? - All good terms, related to chapel, the original sacred place, and fine with me, but if people confuse them with what they normally think - Karajan and the first violinist of the Berlin Philharmonic - it might be misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because "Kapellmeister" is an adopted word in English (or at least has a toehold in our dictionaries) whereas the other terms are clearly completely German.  Tim riley  talk    18:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Gymnasium", on the other hand, will confuse many English readers, who will think of physical jerks rather than the educational establishment that the German term represents. If a suitable English term can be found, I'd be inclined to use it.
 * there is a link, and no English term quite matches that type of school. --GA
 * I had a vague idea that would be the case. Oh, well! Let's leave it.  Tim riley  talk    13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "resulted in a program" – is the article in AmEng? Fine if so. If in BrEng, you want "programme"
 * I am not consistent - see above - having lived in the US but not the UK. More readers may read on a US background, no? --GA
 * Undeniably, but you will understand that an Englishman is likely to think his English is the real thing, and foreign varieties not quite echt. Still, the arithmetic is clear enough.  Tim riley  talk    13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "melismas" – I see from the OED that this form of plural is all right, but I think "melismata" is usual. It would be useful to have other editors' views on this point.
 * For some reason, "melismas" and "commas" don't hurt me, while "requiems" do. --GA


 * WP:OVERLINK: I'd say hymn doesn't want a blue link. There are duplicate links to the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, serpent and Moses.
 * Hymn and violin are linked in all cantata articles, sorry. The other three are intentional, because not all readers will read sequentially. --GA
 * Hmmm. Not wholly persuaded, but will not press the point.

I hope these few points are helpful.  Tim riley  talk    12:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * They are, thank you for looking closely! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to add my support now.  Tim riley  talk    18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review
spotchecks not done


 * Thank you for pointing out some aspects of a work in progress! --GA


 * Why so many sources for "The cantata in six movements..."?
 * fixed --GA


 * On what basis have you selected your recordings?
 * They are the ones bach-cantatas lists. --GA


 * What are the original publication details for Zedler?
 * His insight is used for the other cantata FAs. I would not use it for disputed facts. --GA


 * Don't mix cited and uncited sources in Bibliography
 * Please tell me what you find uncited, - it is not intentional. --GA
 * No citations to Dürr 1971, IMSLP, Leonard 2015, Oron 2012. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the beginning all Dürr citations were to 1971 (in German), now one is left because I can't see those pages in English and would not know the page number of the translation. I deleted Leonard and Oron when I fixed the above, but use Oron now for the recordings, placing Leonard as external link. The score should be available for everyone to check, - do you think it would be a good idea to provide the page number for the movements? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggest providing ISBN-13 where available
 * done --GA


 * What makes Browne a high-quality reliable source? Grob?
 * see Zedler, Grob has details which can be seen in facsimiles also but not as easily --GA


 * Koster is a linguist - what makes him a high-quality reliable source in this context?
 * similar, the site offers contemporary images that help me, so perhaps others also, - and it's in English --GA
 * For all four: accessibility could be a rationale for inclusion in External links but does not in itself support a judgment of reliability for sourcing purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest to have a second reference for those then. Placing them in External links would break the connection of where reading them would be useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you use bach-cantatas or bach-cantatas.com.
 * done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done, see also FN1. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * done now - sorry, I keep forgetting that I am not the only editor, - I knew where "my" references are, and after some thinking, it dawned to me what FN may mean, thank you for noticing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nikkimaria, please let us know if the adjustments satisfy your concerns, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not satisfied as to the reliability of several of the sources being used - having a second reference helps, but you could maintain the "connection of where reading them would be useful" instead by annotating the EL section, if wanted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I try to please you by moving three of them (Arnold, Koster and Zedler) to external links, although I fail to see why you think that they are less trustworthy than Mincham, for example. I see Grob as a database without POV which I would like to keep for a few quotations taken from the manuscript which can be verified there but less easily so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, having previously looked at Mincham as a source, that I believe he meets WP:SPS (see for example ); I don't know that of the others, which is why I asked for justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead I moved three to external. I will perhaps think about justification for the next round, concentrating now on expanding and improving linked articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments
I think the prose is a bit shaky. My view—which I would express to any FAC nominator—would be that this is not a place for "polishing" an article. Having said that, we are here now, and I think the requisite polishing is achievable. Generally, most of my prose concerns arise from syntax – sentences that are hard to read, or even misleading, because they are arranged in a peculiar internal order:
 * "and probably another on the Trinity Sunday concluding his first year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig on 4 June 1724." – this would be clearer if the date were moved closer to "Trinity Sunday" (eg "the Trinity Sunday of 4 June 1724, which concluded his first...").
 * Thank you for your patience. This topic will be expanded. --GA
 * I sorted the paragraph but will look for more sources for the likelihood of a performance on 4 June 1724. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Capellmaster Samuel Drese was still in office at Bach's time, and shared it" – By this point I had forgotten what "it" (responsibility for church music) was. I'd suggest replacing the pronoun.
 * reworded --GA


 * "Performers of the cantatas were mainly the core group of the Hofkapelle, seven singers, three leaders and five other instrumentalists" – are the singers, leaders and instrumentalists part of the "core group of the Hofkapelle"? If so, a comma after "Hofkapelle" is likely to mislead as it suggests it is part of a cumulative list. A colon might be better. If the list is cumulative, I'd suggest an "as well as" (or similar) before "seven" to clarify.
 * tried "formed by", - it's not cumulative --GA


 * "while the organ part was played by Bach's students" – "organ parts", because we are talking about multiple works?
 * only one work played at a time, though, - if I read organ parts, I would think of one work using more than one organ, no? --GA


 * "Even in settings like chamber music, a strong continuo section with cello, bassoon and violone in addition to the keyboard instrument was requested" – requested by whom?
 * by the composer, - active voice tried --GA


 * "and related to the gospel's verse 14 which compares to the symbol" – I don't understand this. Perhaps just let the quote speak for itself a bit more, without so many introductory words.
 * shortened --GA


 * What does "Rec: con Stroment." mean?
 * I added the translation "(Recitative: with instruments)", but it doubles what is said before, "accompanied by the strings (accompagnato)" --GA


 * "adagio" marking on the words "hochheiliges Gotteslamm" – an "adagio" marking (or similar)?
 * done --GA


 * "and by melodic parts of the instruments" – surely "of" should be "for", otherwise it suggests that two strings of a violin are melodic but the other two aren't.
 * taken --GA


 * "reviving it probably there on Trinity Sunday of his first year in office" – the placement of the "probably" is problematic. Is it the location or the date to which the "probably" qualifier applies?
 * will be reworded, probably tomorrow --GA
 * done but may still change --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article is certainly informative, and while I am no Bach expert it appears comprehensive in the sense that it covers everything I would expect it to. Subject to the resolution of Nikkimaria's points, the sourcing also appears to be appropriate. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for careful reading and helpful comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. Support. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from the Doctor
Just noticed that Gotthold Schwarz is linked twice in the last recording section. Is that intentional?♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unusual case, as he is both conductor and soloist. Normally we link them all in a list not expecting readers to read sequentially, but as it is in the same line I removed the link. Very observant, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Does seem unusual than one can concentrate on both at once!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You know that the bass has (only) two recitatives, and in recitatives the instruments often go with the singer without a conductor (who might be disturbing even) anyway. --GA
 * Is there a link for Konzertmeister? As it's not an English term it might benefit from a footnote or the name in brackets even if fairly obvious. Does it mean head of the concert or conductor? Kappellmeister too. In brackets like Schlosskirche (court church) might work best for English readers.
 * There is a link but it describes what a modern Konzertmeister does in a symphony orchestra which has nothing to do with composing, - misleading and therefore not linked in BWV 172. It was "concert master", with German in brackets, before some comments above. Will restore it, now in brackets. --GA


 * "The position, which gave him "a newly defined rank order", as Christoph Wolff phrased it,[3] was created for him, possibly on his demand.[3]" -a lot of commas here, perhaps reword to "The position was created for him, possibly on his demand, giving him "a newly defined rank order" according to Christoph Wolff.
 * taken --GA


 * "In his first cantata of the series, Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182, for the double feast of Palm Sunday and Annunciation, he showed his skill in an elaborate work in eight movements, for four vocal parts and at times ten-part instrumental writing.[8] He also presented himself as a violin soloist." -rep of he/his -perhaps change one to Bach.
 * one dropped --GA


 * In the table perhaps an asterisk/footnote would work better and look more formal explaining that it is possible but unverified/unknown rather than using question marks?
 * will think about that, will possible word something on the poets, --GA


 * "Bach led the first performance of the cantata on 16 June 1715. The performance material for Weimar is lost.[25] Bach performed the work again as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. Extant performance material was prepared by Bach's assistant Johann Christian Köpping.[26] The first possible revival is the Trinity Sunday of Bach's first year in office, 4 June 1724,[27] also the conclusion of Bach's first year and first Leipzig cantata cycle, because he had assumed his office on the first Sunday after Trinity the year before. Bach made presumably minor changes." -the opposite from earlier here, Bach is mentioned six times in one paragraph! Perhaps change a few to "he".
 * taken, 2 changed --GA


 * "The cantata was published in the first edition of Bach's complete works by the Bach-Gesellschaft in 1887 in volume 33, edited by Franz Wüllner." -do we have the formal name for this publication?
 * It's called Bach-Ausgabe, but has no link other than Bach-Gesellschaft. --GA


 * Delink Neue Bach-Ausgabe in next section per overlink.
 * it's there for people reading only that para --GA


 * "John Eliot Gardiner" -I'm sure some of us who don't know much about classical music are ignorant of his identity (even if we shouldn't be), perhaps add "The English composer" before his name like you do with the musicologist further down?
 * In other articles, we (only) say "the musicologist" if there is no link. I will think about saying something about the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage. --GA


 * Ditto with Klaus Hofmann and William G. Whittaker.
 * ditto, - I did it for Whittaker --GA


 * In movement 4, haven't you already linked Moses and serpent or is this piped to a different article now?
 * yes, linked before, but again: some readers will not read sequentially, and it is especially here where the image and its relation to the music is discussed --GA


 * Who is Aryeh Oron?
 * Sorry, I don't know. The spirit behind the Bach-Cantatas website. Perhaps we should have an article on the Bach-Cantatas website ;) --GA
 * I was thinking that it is the primary source on so many Bach related articles we ought to have an article on it, or at least a list in the workspace of all of the missing articles on the site. There's so much missing!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started this. I reckon it would be very productive to have every missing article on it red linked on here! At future FACs then there shouldn't be many bio red links.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

All good, really feels like an authoritative article on it, look forward to supporting once addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC) ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Praise to you for looking into this and also for filling the red links left! (Five, I believe?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Well done! Happy to do so, I'm feeling productive at the moment! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Support from RexxS
General:

I am usually more interested in the background to a piece of music than the intricacies of its scoring, but this article managed to pique my interest in the latter as well. The writers have covered all the topics that I would look for and written it in a manner that keeps my attention. There are not as many references as I might have expected, but I think there are sufficient to verify any text that might be challenged. I dislike having my reading interrupted by having to follow links too often just to understand, but this article manages to explain itself without much need to look at other pages. Well done!

Accessibility:

Although we don't insist on meeting all of WP:ACCESS, I believe that our best work should be as accessible as possible, not only to cater for the visually impaired, but because it serves as a model for other editors to copy. In this respect, the article meets all of my criteria:
 * Images have good alt text that is not too involved, but makes sense when read by screen reader in conjunction with the caption;
 * Tables have captions and properly marked up row and column headers;
 * There is no text too small to read;
 * Colours - where used - have sufficient contrast with their background to make the text readable, and are judiciously chosen so as not to be a distraction.

I'd actually prefer a slightly less saturated colour for the header background in the bottom navbar, but I accept that others prefer it as it is. Overall, I would recommend this article as one of Wikipedia's best works. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Nikolaus-Selnecker.jpg - Source of this digitization? Having English (or at the very least autotranslated) fields would help immensely.
 * File:Crijn Hendricksz.jpeg - Need a version that isn't watermarked.
 * File:1662 Wilhelm Ernst.jpg - Fine
 * File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg - Source of this digitization? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Nikolaus-Selnecker.jpg is an photograph or scan of a 16th century print (made from a copperplate engraving) that belongs to the Theological Seminary in Wittenberg. I've added English translations to the File on Commons. The uploader is commons:User:Torsten Schleese, who identifies as a local history researcher from Wittenberg, so we would have little reason to question his bona fides. As it is a faithful reproduction of a 2-D work of art, the photographer or scanner is unable to generate fresh copyright, as far as WMF is concerned, and that leaves the file as PD-old-100. However I do see that commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs suggests that the image may not be re-usable in some jurisdictions.
 * Much the same applies to File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg which is a reproduction of 17th century oil painting, uploaded by commons:User:Wetwassermann~commonswiki. In general, knowing who made the digitisation doesn't help much other than to help differentiate between a photo and a scan. If the creator is also the uploader, then they have released the images as PD-old-100, so the only question is whether we believe that the uploader had the right to release file under that licence. That concern, of course, is a consideration for every file that finds its way onto Commons. Unfortunately Wetwassermann hasn't been around since 2010, so I don't suppose we can ask him. Does that address your concerns or do you think we ought not to use images that may not necessarily be reusable everywhere? --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, RexxS, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would this image of the conversation be better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rex, I am well aware of the copyright status of the images. That doesn't change the fact that we need sources for the digitizations; we need to say where we got them, and where we got the information about them. Otherwise, these are not examples of Wikipedia's "best" work, as they have unclear sourcing, and uncited information regarding the image itself. Without a source, we can't say for sure that this is a work by X, Y, or Z; what we have is a claim, which may or may not be true. Furthermore, on Commons, lacking a source is grounds for speedy deletion (F5). I doubt we want that to happen here. I've fixed the Selnecker image myself (added "scanned by self" (i.e. the uploader), though to be honest the original source scanned would be best), but the Schlosskirche image still needs a source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda, the Luyken etching would be fine, but again it needs a source. Furthermore, it should be JPG and cropped to remove the text information (the last two are easy to do; I'll do it when I get home from work). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I expected you to know, Crisco, but my commentary will also be read by other editors who may wish to form a view on the issue. Featured Articles are by no means perfect - many don't even meet our basic standards for accessibility, but that's another story - and sometimes we have to accept compromises between having images that meet particular standards and degrading the quality of the article by losing useful images. The standards for images on Commons are an issue for Commons, not this Wikipedia, and most of the time it boils down to whether or not we accept that the uploader has the right to release image under the licence used. My position is that unless we have a genuine reason to suspect that the uploader did not have that right, then we have to respect the given licence as governing re-use. It is not a prerequisite to have details of who scanned PD art, because they cannot affect the right of use under a PD-licence. I accept that photographs carry more copyright issues in some jurisdictions, but that should not be a disqualification for a Featured Article candidate, as WP:FACR.3 only requires "acceptable copyright status" - indeed, even the use of non-free images is allowed subject to meeting the image use policy, none of which requires the source to be named.
 * Additional: Please don't allow the impression that images should be converted from grey-scale gif to jpg format. A gif or 256-colour png can hold just as many shades of grey as can a jpg, but a jpg is a lossy format, while the compression used in gif or png loses no picture information. If there is concern that file size is too great, then by all means create a derivative jpg image, but at thumbnail size File:Bowyer Bible etching by Jan Luyken 8 of 12 Jesus converses with Nicodemus.gif is only 25kB and any reader who has difficulty with that will inevitably have images switched off anyway. --RexxS (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Archived versions of an image should be PNG, yes (GIF is much less common, larger, and less capable, and for new uploads Commons prefers PNG, as per commons:Commons:File types), but until the WMF cleans up their act and enables proper downsampling for PNGs, JPGs should be used in the articles for images with a lot of fine detail such as this. Compare the images in Brian Britten: PNG, JPG. One is blurry and seems to have been shot through a window, while the other is perfectly clear. This keeps the images clearer in the article, and reduces download size.
 * I firmly disagree with your position on images, as we cannot guarantee that the copyright information is correct without a source. Furthermore, and much more simply, WP:FA? #3 includes a sentence you didn't quote: "Images included follow the image use policy," which requires a source for files; by not including sources, the images are not meeting the image use policy, and thus not in line with the FA criteria. As such, until the images are cleaned up, I must sadly oppose this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Either 256-colour png or gif is fine for archived images in greyscale. As these are lossless compressions, they may be freely converted one to the other. However, jpg compression introduces an irreversible loss of picture information and introduces artefacts whenever there is a sharp boundary. Nobody would suggest using jpg as an archive format when a losslessly compressed version is available. I agree that the MediaWiki software makes a poor job of downscaling a png as it inevitably renders a large 16 million-colour version which sometimes has a larger filesize than the original 256-colour png with greater dimensions. The solution if filesize is a consideration is to create a downsized png version of the file with the required resolution yourself and upload that for use in the article. There is no question that a properly resized greyscale png or gif will always have superior image quality to a jpg version at the same resolution.
 * I must just as firmly disagree with your position on images. In many cases, we can never guarantee that copyright information is correct, because we rely just as much on the accuracy of the uploader who might source it as their own work, as we do in the case of the licence they choose. Images uploaded several years ago, in particular, did not have the same constrictions on their uploading, with the result that many perfectly acceptable images uploaded in the previous decade are lacking the sort of information that we ask uploaders to supply today.
 * As for image use policy, that is exactly the link I gave when referring to criterion 3, as you can see above. The policy statement concerning sources in its list of requirements is this:
 * Origin (source): The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from ...
 * For an image from a book this is ideally page number and full bibliographic information (author, title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information, etc.).
 * That is frequently an unachievable goal for a 16th century manuscript or a 17th century oil painting. You are asking for this article to be held to standards that do nothing to make the article Wikipedia's best work, but merely ensure that articles that make use of PD-old-100 images will almost always fail. That cannot be the intention of Featured Articles. --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for the source of the digitization. That is far from calling for the actual manuscript. Indeed, where have I said that I'm looking for that? In my original review, I said "Source of this digitization?" (emphasis added). You are (again) selectively quoting from the relevant policy, missing the much simpler to meet requirement for images from the internet (of which there are examples in spades). If you'd helped Gerda do what was actually asked (providing sources for the digitizations, not the actual locations of the manuscripts or paintings), this would be done by now. It would have taken 15 minutes, tops. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need to start personalising things and I'm going to ask you to stop doing that. If finding the source of a photograph of a 17th century oil painting was a 15 minute job, you can bet I'd have done it by now and I resent your implication that I haven't been doing my best to help. I already carried out a Tin-eye search for File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg and it only turns up derivative files, so that's a dead end. There is no point in asking for a source for a digitisation if the uploader didn't supply it and having that sort of information is of no value in resolving your problem :"Without a source, we can't say for sure that this is a work by X, Y, or Z; what we have is a claim, which may or may not be true.". You are perfectly happy to point me to Benjamin Britten, a Featured Article whose lead image is sourced to a dead link on eBay - what value is that? The photograph of his birthplace is sourced to "Own work" - a claim which may or may not be true. The image of Frank Bridge can't be copied to Commons because it "might not be in the public domain outside the United States" and so on. So I'll ask this clearly: "In what way is File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg so inferior to the images in Benjamin Britten that it should disqualify this article from FA status?" And don't bother to make the self-referential argument that it has no source information, because I'm going to reply, "So what?". --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need to start personalising things and I'm going to ask you to stop doing that. If finding the source of a photograph of a 17th century oil painting was a 15 minute job, you can bet I'd have done it by now and I resent your implication that I haven't been doing my best to help. I already carried out a Tin-eye search for File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg and it only turns up derivative files, so that's a dead end. There is no point in asking for a source for a digitisation if the uploader didn't supply it and having that sort of information is of no value in resolving your problem :"Without a source, we can't say for sure that this is a work by X, Y, or Z; what we have is a claim, which may or may not be true.". You are perfectly happy to point me to Benjamin Britten, a Featured Article whose lead image is sourced to a dead link on eBay - what value is that? The photograph of his birthplace is sourced to "Own work" - a claim which may or may not be true. The image of Frank Bridge can't be copied to Commons because it "might not be in the public domain outside the United States" and so on. So I'll ask this clearly: "In what way is File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg so inferior to the images in Benjamin Britten that it should disqualify this article from FA status?" And don't bother to make the self-referential argument that it has no source information, because I'm going to reply, "So what?". --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerda, I've uploaded a new, non-watermarked version of File:Crijn Hendricksz.jpeg. That means you only need to clean up the sourcing information for the Schlosskirche Weimar image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the upload. I confess that most of the above remains a mystery to me. Are you telling us that if I can't "clean up" the Schlosskirche sourcing information (and I don't even understand what I should/could do), readers would not be able to see an image which they saw in BWV 172 last year, which has been in cantata articles from 2010, which tells them at a glance that the organ was on the third floor with little space around it (something that would be necessary to say then, because it's crucial to understand the performance conditions)? We can't give them a photo instead because the building burnt down. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can. It should take all of two minutes if you have decent information on the image (which you do). Frankly, I'm surprised that this has taken almost 30 hours. Heck, even this could be used (as the copyright claim doesn't apply to PD-ART works). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I'll do it myself, if only so that this nomination doesn't sink over something that should have been dealt with in 15 to 20 minutes... but this means that you need someone else to review images. Perhaps Nikkimaria would be willing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you want to jump in to add image sourcing I can re-check. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * K, I'm done all I can do. I've stricken my oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review 2

 * Nicodemus caption needs editing for grammar
 * File:Crijn_Hendricksz.jpeg: someone has added a note to this saying that the claimed painter is not the real creator - is there any merit to that? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see two versions of the painting at http://www.artnet.com/artists/cryn-hendricksz-volmaryn/past-auction-results - that site is unequivocal in naming Crijn Hendricksz Volmaryn as the author of the one that we use, while the other version is captioned "Attributed to Cryn Hendricksz Volmaryn". Perhaps our note-writer confused the two? I certainly can't find a reliable source indicating any support for his view. --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Christies. It appears that that the 1960's sale date given in the cmt added  about the painting to our file is not accurate. As well, determining whether a painting is a fake or not is really difficult even for an expert let alone doing so with non-experts using a file here. In a look at the painting on the Christies website, our version here compares favourably. Hans Van Meegeren's work seems pretty obviously quite different than the originals he either copied or used as inspiration. In all, I think we can use the file of the pic we have until we have  definitive proof that it is a copy. We're  not in the business of uncovering forgeries or identifying copies after all?(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC))
 * Nikki, did you have a response? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we don't think the comment is accurate, it should probably be either moved to talk or removed entirely rather than left as part of the image description. I think we could also include a citation for in the article's caption, just to be clear on where the attribution is coming from. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that I understand. Isn't "attributed" correct, even if he IS the one, but expressing that not everybody is sure. - I may have a language problem, therefore, Nikki, please feel free to change yourself to what you think is best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "attributed" is correct, we just want to say attributed by whom - that's what the source is for. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me understand: we could simply say "by CHV", as the painters article does, if there wasn't this one dubious comment, - but we can hardly say "attributed by almost everybody", no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but if you are going to say "attributed to", which you can say, you should provide a source for that attribution. Also, the inline EL that has since appeared in the caption shouldn't be there, and the caption still needs editing for grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg you to perform that copy-edit for grammar yourself, - I seem simple unable to understand what you mean, don't know attribution by whom, etc. - Giving up: how about dropping the image altogether? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the alt text! I stared only at the image caption ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Why do we need a source for an attribution here? The image description page provides that information; If we said "by CHV", would you still want a source for that? (2) Why shouldn't a caption contain the standard template used in Wikipedia to point the reader to the relevant Biblical verse Bibleref2? (3) What do you consider is wrong with the grammar in the caption? I can see nothing amiss. "A caption, also known as a cutline, is text that appears below an image. Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious, such as its relevance to the text. Captions can consist of a few words of description, or several sentences." --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (2) For Bach works, we use Sourcetext, as, but I don't think it needs to be repeated in the caption.
 * (3) see above, it wasn't about the caption but the alt text, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) (1) If you're going to say "attributed to", you should include a source for that attribution. (2) It already appears earlier and is not as directly relevant in the caption. (3) I know what a caption is, and you're not seeing a problem with it because I've already fixed it, per Gerda's request above. After ec: Gerda, both alt and caption - I hadn't seen the more extensive issues in the alt until in edit mode, and now I note that the other alts could also use editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The other two alts: one was copied from FA BWV 172, the other modelled after one therem - if you can improve, please go ahead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Why are you requiring a source for "attributed to XYZ", but not requiring a source for "(painted) by XYZ"? I can see no logic in that. (2) The pointer to the biblical text occurs four sections higher under "Topic and text". The guidance calls for only one link in an article, but makes an exception for image captions: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.". I wouldn't agree that omitting such a later link improves the article in any way, but I accept that others' opinions may differ on that. Nevertheless the biblical passage is utterly relevant to the theme of the painting - it's what links the image to this article. How can you think it's not relevant in the caption, when one of the caption's main purposes is point out the "relevance to the text"? (3) by adding a hyphen between "seventeenth" and "century"? Why tease Gerda like that - if there's a trivial problem, either state it explicitly or fix it yourself immediately. This is meant to be a collaborative review, not some sort of final exam for a nominator to pass. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Because "attributed to" suggests that someone has attributed it to this artist, rather than it being a simple fact that this painting is by this artist - thus, we want some indication of who the "someone" is. The image page does not currently provide that given that it still includes the commentary about how this image is not really by that artist, which needs to be dealt with in some way before this passes. (2) OVERLINK refers to wikilinks, not external links - including external links inline is deliberately rarely done, and the link between the image and the text is already accomplished by the adjacent text and by the previous caption, without the EL. (3) No one is trying to "tease Gerda", but instead to give her autonomy in how to approach the problem - as indeed someone has since used, in completely rephrasing the caption. Gerda: I apologize if my comment came across as "teasing" - are you satisfied with the caption and with my changes to the alt texts? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nikki and Crisco for reviewing images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.