Talk:Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Lede
- Rep of ambitious
- "expands the contrast " -doesn't seem right here, try "illustrates" or "exaggerates" or something
- The contrast is given by the biblical quote, he expands the thoughts, - better wording welcome. --GA
Tim riley Any thoughts? Perhaps you can also provide some pointers here..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think if you make it "expands on" rather than just "expands" it will read very well. Tim riley talk 17:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, tried ---GA
- History
- Delink Thomaskantor and link in first instance in Background. Also why is one in Italics and not the other?
- Linked in lede and on first occurrence in body now, all italic, --GA
- Again "expands the contrast" and rep of "The poet expands"
- s.a. --GA
- "non-Leipzig paper" -what is that? Is Leipzig paper special or something?
- Musicologists know the (different) kind of paper used in Leipzig vs. what Bach used in Köthen, - better wording welcome. --GA
- Scoring
- Just a list, not your usual summary? Couldn't you find anything in detail on each part?
- Will be a table - after Nielsen ;) --GA
- Music
- Watch ] here : chorale cantata]s
- thank you, fixed --GA
A source for selecting recordings would be useful at the top.
- Do you mean for criteria of selection? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I mean add the citation link after "A list of recordings is provided by Aryeh Oron on the Bach-Cantatas website."
- Made the source an inline citation, ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I mean add the citation link after "A list of recordings is provided by Aryeh Oron on the Bach-Cantatas website."
- Do you mean for criteria of selection? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I was waiting to see if Tim riley had some further points beyond my own but this looks passable now, good work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)