Talk:Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich denn, BWV 157/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 08:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

After our previous discussion on my talk page, this article being reviewed by me is only fair! --K. Peake 08:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Infobox looks good!
Sorry, I don't agree. In the typical infobox for a Bach cantata, we see at a glance the occasion, important performances, and the scoring for voices and instruments. In this particular case, it's especially important because there were two occasions, the funeral and Purification. I agree with Nikkimaria, a former key editor, that the infobox should be kept concise, but believe that the first performance should show to give an idea of the time in history, and the intimate initial scoring (vs. trumpets and timpani in other cantatas), even if it was slightly changed later. As it was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the reviewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know much about infoboxes for cantatas, so could you please add any extra info that belongs here? --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did but was reverted so let's discuss. For biographies, I would want date and place of birth. For a composition, the equivalent would be time and place of premiere if known, and here it's known. Nikkimaria, would you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time and place of premiere is already included. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[1] does not need to be in the lead when the title is already sourced in the body
fine, I just thought it takes too long into the article until the translation comes again --GA
"in a memorial service" → "during a memorial service"
fine --GA
The word Feast should begin with capitalization and why is Purification piped to a different page from the body here?
not sure, - I think we'd say Marian feast, not Marian Feast, a description, not a name. For people who have no idea what Purification is (which I assume are many), the first link/explanation is needed, but once informed, the second is more meaningful for everybody, with the prescribed readings and other works for the occasion --GA
Where is the last aria part sourced?
will look with more time --GA
Any updates on this? --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a summary, but could be worded differently if that's a problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the third para with the second one
I try to make the lead longer, because Nikkimaria is concerned about the infobox "bleeding" into the body. --GA
It is still only two sentences, which is too short to be a full para. --K. Peake 09:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
one para is text, the other music, and it's three sentences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add a comma before as reconstructed
fine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History and text

Pipe Saxon to Saxons
really? haven't done that in any other such article, - isn't Leipzig Saxon enough? --GA
Saxon is wikilinked, which redirects to Saxons... unless this is an error, then fix it. --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made the pipe now (but not the original link because I have no idea how knowing about the history of the Saxons would help understanding, when all supposed to be said is that he worked for the government of Saxony.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"on his death," → "when he died," because "on his death" does not sound correct without a date, which would be too excessive
I removed the whole phrase as redundant --GA
Remove comma after home village
I would if the 20km thingy wasn't there --GA
Nowhere is "quite well documented" actually sourced so remove this per WP:SYNTH, though you can keep the fact the printed commemoration exists
rephrased, please check --GA
Looked now, totally fine! --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink Christian Keymann
no, we don't link authors (of cantats, operas, hymns) when their work has an article --GA
Why so? This seems like not wikilinking a singer/rapper but linking their song. --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
to avoid too much blue, projects Classical music and Opera say Verdi's Aida, a link to the precise work, and whoever really doesn't know the author can be sure to find him in the work's article. Why for rappers that would be different I don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "and from" before the Gospel of Luke, as comma is correct separation and you have used the term from previously
taken - we should properly say "the epistle from ..., and the gospel from the Gospel ..." but then we'd have gospel twice, - let's assume people know that much about Lutheran liturgy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Scoring and structure

Remove excess closing bracket after (B)
yes (copied from somewhere where it was needed, - sorry) --GA
"the closing chorale, and" → "the closing chorale and"
really? "the closing chorale and an ensemble"? - no, "a choir ... and an ensemble", but my understanding of English may be wrong --GA
Re-read the sentence and I was mistaken, your version is correct actually. --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"he scored it" → "Bach scored the cantata"
I wouldn't like cantata twice in a row, tried something else, please check - company needs me for vacation - more later today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not used earlier in this sentence, nor in the previous one so what do you mean? --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you said that it was rearranged, and now again, sorry about that. I moved Hofmann (first quoted in Music) to History. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Movements

Merge the first para with the second one per it being overly short
If you compare other cantatas (BWV 1, BWV 248 III ...), you'll have a summary, and then a subsection for each movement. Nikkimaria doesn't like them for the short movements, so I comply and don't use them for a all, for consistency. But combining summary and first movement wouldn't work for me. - Only after I wrote that did I notice that Nikkimaria changed it already, - please check again. --GA
"ends, and bisects the movement; it features" → "ends and bisects it; the ritornello features"
as before --GA
Is the comma really needed here? --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a full-stop before "to the words" when this should be part of the sentence? Also, [8] should be solely at the end.
full stop was already removed, and the ref thing I don't understand --GA
[8] should be solely at the end of the sentence. --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comma removed, ref moved --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the tenor recitative para with the above one per short size
no, per first item: each movements its own, with an anchor from the table --GA
"aria, recitative, and" → "aria, recitative and" but arioso does not appear to be sourced anywhere
removed for now, but I heard it, and the recitatives are on the arioso side, - I'll ping you in case find a ref for that. --GA
Use the full names of Handel and Telemann
I wanted to say no because these are about the most familiar Baroque composers, - we could honour them as we would Beethoven and Verdi, but now my helper already changed it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"before a final aria" → "until a final aria"
The former is correct here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure, as before is used very recently? --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add a comma before "with a conjunct melody..."
found it done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

Per WP:SONGCOVER, you need decent coverage to keep any of these
These aren't "covers" per se - the applicable guideline is rather Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Recordings. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, but it appears they are not all mentioned by the sources. --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now all sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Italicise Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis
found it done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Copyvio score looks pretty good at 32.9%!
Archive all of these by using the tool
haven't done that for any FA, - which tool? --GA
There are several, IABot is one, but agree this is not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is fix dead links, but leave this. --K. Peake 22:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure refs 1 and 9 don't need a language parameter?
sure about 1, and 9 has one now --GA
Cite Bach Digital as publisher instead for ref 3
It's the name of the database, not the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK of Klaus Hofmann on ref 5
Assuming you mean WP:REPEATLINK, that guideline includes an exception for footnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a footnote though, it is in the author link parameter. --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink University of Alberta on ref 6
found it with link now --GA
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 7 and 11
found it done

Nikkimaria, thank you for help with the formatting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Pipe Kalmus Edition to the appropriate Wiki since it currently leads to a disambiguation page
? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before Nikkimaria had got to this, it was directed to a disambiguation page. --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; bet you knew I'd come through with this one! --K. Peake 09:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt I have left comments above for you in the relevant areas; thanks to both you and Nikkimaria for the hard work on this article! --K. Peake 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replied as I could (so not a question you had for Nikimaria), - sorry for making this extra hard for you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt ✓ Pass now, good work implementing the changes and any not done I am totally understanding of! --K. Peake 22:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]