Talk:Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 17:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this article.

Assessment

Lead section/Infobox

• Link (here and in the main text) Protestant, hymnal, stanza.

  I linked Protestant and stanza. If I link hymnal, we'll get a sea of blue, and someone really not knowing what a hymnal is can be sure to find it under the linked hymnal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• ... in 1666/67. - (here and in the main article) is unclear to me. Does this mean: for either one year or the other; over a period of two years, or; for a period at the end of one year and the start of the other?

  well, this is what the source says, but doesn't say how to understand it - look here, link to no. 2, page 7 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I would have said from (10 Hefte à 12 Lieder in den Jahren 1666 und 1667) that the article can say 'in 1666 or 1667', or even paraphrase what the link says. Or leave it if you want. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

changed to 1666 in the lead (with "first") and 1666 and 1667 later, being published in several Hefte. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• ...it is EG 449. - I would amend it to something like ‘...it is listed as EG 449.’ to help improve the prose.

  taken --GA

• ...published 1855,… - I would say ‘...published in 1855,…’ (ignore me if I’m being too British).

  taken --GA

• I would avoid common (here and elsewhere in the article), as imo it's a peacock word.

  this is what the source says, - what do you recommend? --GA

I would have done ' "The golden sunbeams with their joyous gleams" is a version by Catherine Winkworth's...' and 'Richard Massie's "Evening and Morning", which follows the original meter throughout, translates...', but I'm OK for it to be left as it is. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• The meter 5 5 5 5 10 5 6 5 6 10 is in the infobox but is not found in the main article. I would add it there with a citation.
• Looking at Template:Infobox_musical_composition#Example_2_-_Hymn, I notice there’s a difference in formatting for the meter. (minor point).

  call it original research but even you could count the metre from the text. The addition in the article is not by me, and I can't see the source. It is an unusual scheme, used here for the first time, which other sources also say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

History

• The name of the hymn shouldn’t be in bold here.

  sorry, overlooked when copying --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 1 (Kirschbaum) says it was one of Gerhardt’s last sunsongs. a point worth noting I think (Sonnen-Liedern may be a term unique to his compositions—if so, I would use this).

  pointed out now that it was a late hymn, not only a late sun song. The term may be coined by the author, - that's easy in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• ...calls for cheerfulness. - doesn’t seem to be verified by Ref 1 (Kirschbaum).

  "cheerful" is the closest translation for "munter" in the text. I replaced "calls" by "turns" - you almost see someone lying down standing up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• All of the text in this section verified by Ref 2 (Zahn) is in fact verified by Ref 4 (The Free Lutheran Chorale-Book).

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 5 (www.evangeliums.net) doesn’t seem to verify the text.

  can you be more specific? I didn't count the number of song-book titles, but it is high. One is "Meine Zeit in Gottes Hand / Lieder und Texte zur Bestattung" translates to "My time in God's hands ( songs and texts for funerals", and many name "Jugend" (youth), "Kinder" (children), "Schule" (school) and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Understood, my apologies. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Text and topic

• It may be that not all readers understand what ...aa bb c dd ee c. signifies. I would link rhyming (Rhyme scheme).

  done (by Francis) --GA

• Link Baroque and sermon (separated if possible).

  not sure, sorry - both are super-large concepts, and I guess that someone who really doesn't know what a sermon is might rather be confused, even if more specific Christian (there). I dropped the word Baroque at the beginning, and linked to Baroque literature later. --GA

If sermon is a super concept, then the narrower version of its meaning in this sentence—we are talking about 17th century German Protestant sermons— needs to be clear to readers. I would link sermon to Sermon#Protestantism. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked at that. Imagine a person not knowing what a sermon is landing there ("doctrine, "faith alone" ...). Also, what we'd need is not about the theology, but structure and length, therefore I still go for literature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

fair enough. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Who was Johann Arndt?

  added a bit from the lead of his article --GA

• ...Güter and Gaben… - ‘...Güter und Gaben…’.

  fixed --GA

• I’m unclear why the German for stanza ...(Strophenform)… appears, as no other English musical terms are treated in a similar way in the article. Did Gerhardt invent this term?

  Francis changed some, - is it clearer? --GA

That's fine now. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• It reflects the light… - what is ‘’it’’ referring to here?

  clarified I hope --GA

• Can ...several times. be made more specific?

  could be, but this is an article about one hymn, not Gerhardt's inventiveness in forms of rhyming schemes, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  more tomorrow --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Translation

• ...and again, stanzas 1, 3, 4 and 12, in Kennedy's hymnal in 1863. - could be cited using this.

  will add when I have more time --GA

• Link Kennedy (Benjamin Hall Kennedy).

  taken with thanks --GA

• Link meter (presumably using either Metre (music) or Metre (hymn)).

  done --GA

• Amend ..., "What is our mortal race" (beginning with stanza 7) (1866) and "See the sun's glorious light" by E. Massie (1867),… - ‘..., "What is our mortal race" (beginning with stanza 7) by E. Massie (1866), "See the sun's glorious light" by E. Massie (1867),…’, which I think sounds better.

  well, then the format should be first year then poet for all others also, no? - I added "also" to indicate the same poet --GA

• Miss Dunn is presumably Catherine Hannah Dunn, Miss Cox is Frances Elizabeth Cox, E. Massie is Edward Massie, and J. Kelly is John Kelly (see this link, pp. Vii, 133). Their full names should be included.

  Thank you so much! - Please note that Translation was taken to Text (by Francis), also the untranslated stanzas were removed. I think Gerhardt wrote it as a complete piece of art, and a reader can easily skip untranslated German if unable to read it. I am also not sure if it's wise to speak about a text and its translations before presenting it neutrally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Melody and settings

• Shouldn’t leichtfüßig be added in brackets as well, for consistency?

  I'm uneasy about that, because it would come in the middle of a phrase, and is a literal translation --GA

Understood.

• Link aria; Johann Sebastian Bach.

  doing, but "aria" with hesitation, because again it's a detour to many meanings --GA

• Ebeling's melody follows the text… - I think this needs to be more clearly written, as it sounds euphemistic. Then the rest of the paragraph is better understood.

  what do you suggest? ... follows the down and up again of the mood described in the text - that would be too colloquial, - I feel my lacking command of English, not even understanding what's EU about "follows" --GA

Something like "The rhythm of Ebeling's melody is based on the text of the first stanza...". (I'm not sure why verse is not used here instead of 'stanza', but that's a minor point i think). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not the rhythm but the melodic line, moving down and up again. Verse is for things such as bible verses, not with fix metre and often rhyme. Another possible word would be strophe, but in all hymn articles I know, stanza is used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Amend defiant to 'defiant-sounding'?

  done --GA

• Amend ...published by Freylinghausen… to ‘...published by the theologian Johann Anastasius Freylinghausen…'.

  done --GA

• further is redundant.

  removed --GA

• Ref 2 and 4 seems to have swapped again.

  seems corrected --GA

• Two further melodies were composed… - this sentence doesn’t seem to be verified by Ref 2 (Kirschbaum).

  right, that was a Francis addition, now already with a different ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• Ref 3 (iah-hymnologie.de) is a dead link.

  replaced --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  well, this is an overview of pdfs, - no idea why I don't get the url for the individual link, No. 2 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

On hold

@Gerda Arendt: I've completed the review of this rather interesting article. I'll put it on hold for a week unitl 12 October 15 October to give time for my comments to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I just found a promising ref, the introduction to a 2007 publication of Gerhardt's songs, first published in 1949. I'll look at that on Thursday, - have a different topic until then. You may have seen that I tried to insert some of Massie's translation, but it didn't stay. I admit that I juxtaposed a stanza to the wrong model. I also notice that theologians have not been regarded as reliable references. No time to be annoyed, see above, and the song ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: re. "I ... notice that theologians have not been regarded as reliable references" – nonsense. The distinction is not between theologian and non-theologian sources, but between those interpretations that need a WP:INTEXT attribution, and general statements which can be written in Wikipedia's voice. Examples:

• See the reviewer's comments about the word common in #Lead section/Infobox above. Gerda apparently only distinguishes between whether something is in a source or not. As it happens, the source for "common" in this context is not a 21st-century website (as it was intimated by the manner the expression used to be referenced in the body of the article), but an early 20th-century dictionary. Since there is no way to say whether what was common in the early 20th century, will always and forever be common (inluding in the 21st century), the word "common" can, in this context, not be used in Wikipedia's voice, but needs a WP:INTEXT attribution to the source that uses the qualifier. I sorted that here. This example is given in order to illustrate that this sort of problems (legion in Gerda's original version of the article) has nothing to do with whether or not the source is a theologian.
• I just placed this {{tone}} tag. This seems to me to be the same problem as mentioned above by the reviewer in #Melody and settings regarding "Ebeling's melody follows the text… (etc)". In this case, an entire paragraph is written in Wikipedia's voice, totally ignoring that this is a succession of interpretations which, apparently, are only found in a single theologian's narrative. Gerda, do us a favour and show that you can get this sorted (i.e. getting the tone right so that a reader can know, without clicking to references, what is a single theologian's interpretation, and what is common knowledge about the hymn tune) in mainspace. Tx.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Francis, please don't over-estimate the term "theologian", - I only wanted to say that for example Kirschbaum is a person who knows what she is speaking about. As for the melody, anybody who looks at the melody (and can read music a bit) can see that the range is low for the text "lagen darnieder" (were down) and high again for "munter und fröhlich" (cheerful and joyful). We don't need any particular reference for the obvious, imho. I wish I could write Lilypond. Anybody? (... or I may try). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

So, in sum, you don't see what this is about. Not sure who you were trying to please with this edit? Not me, for clarity: I'd be pleased if I saw you understood what the WP:INTEXT vs. Wikipedia's voice distinction is about. IMHO, that's more important than messing with mainspace text while denying there is something that needs addressing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

While on hold, the article was changed considerably. I have no time to look at details but see two major problems.

• The presentation of the complete lyrics was reduced to single stanzas. I feel that it is enough that Gerhardt's work is always censored by picking individual stanzas, in services, in translation, but we are free to see it united at a glance, without having to go to a reference.
• Refs from Theologians from the 20th and 21st century were replaced by a massive quote from one (Koch) from the 19th century. His old-fashioned language is hard to understand even for Germans, and doesn't get easier when translated. Nothing wrong about citing him also but please without high visibility for his individual historic POV.

Less substantial but still annoying: a layout which presents stanzas in different lengths simply because their longest lines are of different lengths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't use WP:EGG links such as "was changed considerably". Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Amitchell125, what you could do is say which version you reviewed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm not quite clear what you mean, as checking the History there seems to have been both you and another changing the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't clear perhaps. I think by now all concerns above are done, but the article isn't the same that you reviewed. No idea if you could mention which version you reviewed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this is where I last edited the review (17:29, October 6, 2020), and the last edit you made to the article prior to this time was this. Any use? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the GA process. The situation that an editor who wasn't the reviewer made major undiscussed changes during the review is new to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: New to me too. Can i suggest we give this editor time to complete any intended changes to the article, and then we repeat the GAN process once it stops being changed. I intend not to allow disruption to the GAN process a second time, but would keep any improvements made. What do you think? Amitchell125 (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: thanks for leaving me the opportunity to work on this for some time, with which I'm ready for now (I have some more ideas but not yet the time to elaborate them). For clarity, I was invited here a few weeks ago, to address an issue for which I had not much time then. So, I applied a hack with which I wasn't too happy, intending to return here once I had somewhat more time, which happened a few days ago when the GA review had already started. I don't think the article was ready for GA at the time of GA nomination. I don't know whether it is now, but if it is, it is now for the largest part (i.e. more than half of it) my work, so I'd like the opportunity to submit it for GA review. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Thanks for offering to submit the article for GA, but it's not possible for the article to be submitted yet, as it is on hold as a GAN already. I am waiting for any remaining issues to be addressed by the current nominator before deciding if the article can pass or not. Please check out Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_4:_Finishing_the_review for the current stage I am hoping to reach before too long. personally, I would allow Gerda Arendt to complete the GAN with me, and then consider getting it up to FA yourself—the process is gruelling but very worthwhile. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm OK with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me. I am unhappy with some changes and said so just above. No answer to the key question about the complete text. One of the more recent theologians was given more prominence. I like the addition of images but not there placement, and was reverted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Francis, please let this be the last time that you interfer with a GA review. When you feel an article is not ready for GA, best make changes (or better: suggest them on the talk) before a review, or do the review yourself, or make changes (and better suggest ...) after a review, but not during it, which causes extra work for the reviewer. During a review, the article should be as stable as can be, for transparency. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerda, I have no time for your passive-aggressive replies. Can we concentrate on content, and less on who-does-what? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: I owe you an apology for the "Philippi" variant name of the tune: apparently I was looking at the wrong hymnary.org page for the reference (the one that shows the tune, instead of the one that is called tune, but that doesn't show the tune). I hope I sorted it correctly with this edit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Apology taken, change liked. I'd prefer an apology for "passive-agrressive". I tried to not blame you by name, but it was you asking for no Easter-egg. I still had no time to look at the changes in detail, sorry about that. I plan to list individual facts, and what is acceptable (most probably) and what not, over the next days. There are still Recent deaths to take care of, arbitration election, and real life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Well, as said, I don't want to lose time with that. If I'd have the idea that you'd be ready for some new insights I'd explain and/or accept your apologies, which I'd then consider time well spent. But that seems not going to happen anywhere soon, so maybe best to just drop it for now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

11 October

Amitchell125, Francis: I think we reached a state today - with the complete lyrics back - that is ready to be reviewed. Francis, thank you for the many details you added, including images and references. I grew up with the song, first exposed in Kindergarten, - please forgive me some personal attachment. As BlueMoonset pointed out, we don't own articles, and it doesn't really matter who nominates a GA. My first nom was for someone else. - I suggest to go for a Peer review (for FAC) after this, and that can be done together. My greatest FAs were done in in collaboration, Messiah (my first, invited by great masters) and Kafka. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

12 October

@Francis Schonken: The article is still being edited regularly by you. From now on, I would be grateful if could you avoid editing it, but instead discuss on this page any amendments you would wish to see, so as to allow the nominator and myself to continue our work, perhaps with your recommendations in mind. The article needs to be have stability before Gerda Arendt and I can both continue reviewing it, and I want to see the task of bringing it up to GA level completed reasonably soon. Thank you for your understanding. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. Finished now. If I happen to encounter something new that might be useful for the page, I'll mention it on talk without editing the article, until the GA procedure is over. Thanks for your patience. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ideas (can be ignored until after the GA):

1. Insert:

   [[File:Another Entrance to Nikolai Church.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|Southern entrance of the Nikolaikirche in Berlin, with early 17th-century wall decorations]]

   under the "Context" section title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, a collection of ideas. I think with a short note of what you add, you could still add bits to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but no mixed messages please. I'm waiting for the article to become as stable as the other 80+ I've reviewed, with only the nominator making any edits, and I'm hoping for that before continuing the review. Amitchell125 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Amitchell125, sorry, I had missed your post when I wrote the above. Striking part of it. I don't plan changes, I could live with what we have now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reassessment

@Gerda Arendt: Please comment on each issue as before, many thanks. I'll let you know when the commnets are complete. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for a second round, and I feel sorry for you to have to do it, and am thankful you were willing. There are points where I agree with you, and then Francis may like to comment (not change, please). Example: oversized images. I will use "agree --GA", sparing signatures and pings.

Re. "Francis may like to comment (etc)" thanks for the suggestion, but will likely not be commenting nor editing until the GA proceedings are concluded. That being said, I think that a few of the reviewer's suggestions are so bad that if they would be implemented by the time the procedure concludes, they would likely be overturned soon after. Would like to thank Gerda for showing some common sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I read that as a refusal to participate in a collegial effort to improve this article. "... overturned soon after" reads like a thread of another round of instability, - I'd much prefer to see you willing to comment the points raised now, - better say that you think an indiviuald suggestion or my attempt of a solution is "bad" than letting us guess. - I am not sure if the conditional in the last sentence ("Would like to thank ...") means "if she'll show some common sense in the future", - to me, the wording is ambiguous. I'm afraid that it causes extra problems that you and I are no native speakers of English, - a fact we can't change but which may cause more misunderstandings than written language can cause anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem for the collegial effort, but, for me, the GA procedure still not being concluded is rather a hindrance than something that helps that collegial effort. So my main objective now is to have the remainder of the procedure as short as possible. As I see it, the reviewer won't close if they aren't left alone with you for some days to sort issues (they've been clear about that). So, from where I stand, the shortest road to closure for this GA, is leaving you and the reviewer alone till what must be done is done. But wanted to make clear that my silence on the way this is going should not, retroactively, be interpreted as consent with every point the procedure results in (for clarity: there's of course also a lot I agree with). Collegial efforts will, from my part, of course resume ASAP after the embargo, indirectly imposed on me until GA closure, ends. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not being able to know with what you agree and what not makes it harder for me, but I can't help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead section/Infobox

• Who were Catherine Winkworth, Jacob Hintze, Johann Anastasius Freylinghausen, Richard Massie and Hermann H. M. Brueckner? They should be introduced in the text, e.g., '...the artist John Middleton...'.

  I believe that the lead should be concise. I'd rather introduce them in the body especially if there's a link. I don't like introducing Bach as a "German Baroque composer" every time we speak of him, and where would be the line between generally known and less known? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  I also think that translators besides Winkworth and Massie are no lead material. The content of the hymn would be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. A125 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.127.246 (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed two names from there, just leaving that a 2006 hymnal still has 4 stanzas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Context

• Who were Johann Arndt, Johann Georg Ebeling, Erasmus Rösner, Christoph Runge and Johann Crüger?

  I changed the header to the standard "History", that way Crüger and Ebeling are introduced. I feel that the "Sun" symbolism doesnt belong in the History. Will think. - The publishers - aren't they explained enough by saying what they do? --GA

• I would remove the four links in the caption (MOS:OL).

  nor sure, - it's common to link on first mentioning, and many readers will only look at the images. I generally feel that thes voice types don't need a link, caption or not, but others disagreed. --GA

  fine, done, per overlink --GA

• The multiple image size—600px—is unnecessarily large (see MOS:IMGSIZE, which explains that “As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 220px (the initial base width), and if an exception to this general rule is warranted, the resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide”).

  only, even in this size, the print is too small to be legible --GA

• I think the section's first sentence should start with the topic’s name, something like ’The hymn "Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne" was written by the Lutheran theologian and hymnwriter Paul Gerhardt, when he was pastor at the Nikolaikirche in Berlin.’.

  I tried something, please check --GA

• Ref 3 (https://hymnary.org/) gives the correct title to the work.

  not sure I understand that, didn't include this ref, and believe that there must be better refs about the author, but do we need them for his specific work? --GA

• Ref 5a (Kohler) doesn’t appear to verify the text, as p. 11 has only the words to another hymn.

  don't know if we look at the same thing. When I follow the link, I arrive at an overview, Kohler being the second. When I click upload I see on p. 11 "Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne / (EG 449, RG 571, EM 603, CG 306; / ChB 19 – 23) 12 Strophen à 10 Zeilen, jambisch-amphibrachisch / 5.5. 5.5. 10. 5.6. 5.6. 10., / aa bb c dd ee c"

  I wish I could link there directly, help? --GA

• Please copy edit: ...which are using… – ...which all used...; 25 of Gerhardt's hymns – sentences don’t start with a number.
• which were is redundant
• Johann Arndt's writings on the sun, which were published in the early 17th century, inspired Gerhardt. - I think should be amended to something like 'Gerhardt was inspired by the theologian Johann Arndt's writings on the sun, published in the 1610s.'. (link here.

  done --GA

• According to Arndt, the sun is a symbol of God's love. - needs a citation.
• mature years is imo idiomatic and to be avoided (WP:IDIOM).

  well, yes, but if we say "later years", it's repetitive to "last" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 6 (Zahn) doesn’t appear to verify the text.

  dont know any about Zahn, - Francis? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Most of Gerhardt's earlier hymns had been published for the first time in successive editions of… – I would amend this to read ‘Most of Gerhardt's early hymns were first published in …’.

  It was changed in the process of achieving a bit more chronology. --GA

• Crüger had been cantor at the Nikolaikirche until his death in 1662, when he was succeeded by Johann Georg Ebeling. Ebeling started to publish Gerhardt's hymns from 1666, in a series called Pauli Gerhardi Geistliche Andachten (lit. 'Paul Gerhardt's spiritual devotions'). - consider ‘Johann Georg Ebeling succeeded Crüger as the cantor of the Nikolaikirche in 1662, and published Gerhardt's hymns in 1666, in Pauli Gerhardi Geistliche Andachten.'.

  The succession is now mentioned earlier. --GA

• Consider improving The series, which totalled 120 hymns, contains Ebeling's musical settings of Gerhardt's poetry. - by changing it to something like 'the music of the 120 hymns in the series composed by Ebeling.’.

  not only the music, - will need to think, and it's past midnight, perhaps I better stop ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Also, "Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne" was first published in 1666, in the third volume of the Geistliche Andachten, with Ebeling's four-part setting. The volume was first printed by Erasmus Rösner in Frankfurt an der Oder, before it was reprinted by Christoph Runge in Berlin. Ebeling's header for the hymn reads "Morgen-Segen" (Morning–blessing). could be simplified to 'Ebeling's original four-part setting of Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne" – which he called "Morgen-Segen" (Morning–blessing) - formed part of the third volume, first printed by the publisher Erasmus Rösner.’.

  I rephrased the whole paragraph, simpler, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll need to return with more time. RL calling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I made some minor changes, see responses above. Major concerns: I think the sun symbolism doesn't belong in the history, and Koch's rather personal (and rather dated) view might come somewhere later, not before we even met Gerhardt's poetry. "Reception" perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawing

@Gerda Arendt: With a heavy heart I feel I must withdraw from reviewing the article, as I feel the task is beyond me. I hope you understand. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

sure --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Failing

For clarity, the reviewer returned two days later and failed the GA. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

I hope other editors reading this review or at the article's history since was started, will understand why the article needed to be re-nominated. Its instability over the last three weeks means I should have failed it much earlier in the process. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)