Jump to content

Talk:Geist und Seele wird verwirret, BWV 35/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

[edit]
  • Lead
    • "derives the analogy" – "deploys", "uses" ?
      • not sure I know what you mean, is it about Nikkimaria's sentence? --GA
  • History and words
    • "the summer and fall of 1726" – the MoS bids us avoid mentioning the seasons in such cases as it may confuse or annoy readers in the opposite hemisphere. Better to stick to months or "middle and late 1726"
      • year should be precise enough --GA
    • "in which an alto soloist as the only singer" – "as" is a typo for "is" I imagine, and in any case this is surely wrong. What are the choir if not singers? I suggest "...in which the only soloist is an alto".
      • What choir? The little bit in one of them - and not this one which was written before Bach even had the idea to close a cantata by a chorale? (The chorale was performed by the orchestra members in a performance I heard.) --GA
    • "the opening Sinfonia" – not capitalised elsewhere in the article.
      • lc now, --GA
  • Music
    • You might give Sir John Eliot Gardiner his title (piped, please).
      • I wrote 3 FAs and several GAs without the title for him - as I don't add "Prof." to profs ;) - If you add it I won't revert, --GA
    • "The musicologist Klaus Hofmann" – but earlier you have gone for the false title in "consequently, conductor Craig Smith has suggested". Perhaps be consistent? (My strong preference is to eschew the cheap journalese false title, but you may think differently.)
      • The sentence about the conductor is not by me, and I would happily change it because many more than just he arrived at the same idea, - it's simply keeping a sentence that I found before expanding, --GA
  • Selected recordings
    • "The sortable table are excerpt from" – singular noun with plural verb. And I'm not sure about "excerpt from" as a verb. I'd be inclined to avoid the matter by writing "Sortable table; source: Bach-Cantatas website"
      • tried "based on", prefer prose, --GA
    • It isn't obvious how "period" and "Bach" orchestras are to be distinguished from one another; and surely whether a large orchestra is a radio orchestra is less important than the fact that it is a symphony orchestra. (Besides, I daresay there are some radio stations misguided enough to maintain period orchestras.)
      • The distinction is made for Mass in B minor, for example. Should I link to that passage, or do you know a better way to avoiding copying the same to 200 articles? --GA

Not worth putting the review on hold for such minor points. Pray consider them and we can press on. – Tim riley talk 12:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for diligent reading! I tried. - How do you feel about supplying the full date of the first recording and the scoring in the infobox, as a service to readers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification higher up. - Your personal view as the one and only objector to a detailed infobox for this cantata - inconsistent with all other Bach cantatas on FA and GA level - is obvious from the discussion above. I asked Tim. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think info-boxes are legitimate for such articles, but in my view they should confine themselves to the core info. Dates of first recordings are more than somewhat peripheral, me judice. Tim riley talk 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could argue with some of the replies above, but I disapprove of GAN reviewers who presume to exceed their authority beyond assessing whether an article meets the GA criteria. In my judgment this one meets every criterion, and so …

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Always a pleasure to review a music article, and I enjoyed this one. But be warned: if you take it to FAC I shall have quite a lot to say, mostly on lines adumbrated above. Tim riley talk 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my pleasure. - I am sorry that I wrote "first recording" above - after dealing with the recordings - while I meant "first performance". I would like to see the full date of the first performance next to the occasion in the infobox, rather than just the year, helping those who have no idea what Trinity means. I would also like to show the modest scoring at a glance, and in general appreciate to see articles of comparable quality in similar appearance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems much more to the point, but this discussion belongs elsewhere: probably on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 21:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, but wanted to correct here where I made the mistake. It also is transcluded there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geist_und_Seele_wird_verwirret,_BWV_35/GA1&oldid=1136755088"