Talk:Liebster Jesu, mein Verlangen, BWV 32/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 23:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Link Darmstadt in lede and history.
- yes --GA
- "Lehms treated the Gospel to an allegorical dialogue of Jesus and the Soul, staying close to the Gospel." -avoid rep of Gospel
- removed the earlier wording at the end --GA
- Why are the keys in the table all linked except B minor?
- thank you --GA (because one source had e minor which was linked before, and when I changed I forgot to link)
- "The keys and time signatures are taken from the book on all cantatas by the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr," -why not just mention the name of the book?
- Do you think the title conveys how general that book is? meaning that facts about other cantatas can also be sourced to it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- You could word it like "The keys and time signatures are taken from xxx, a book by the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr which features facts about the cantatas".
- That would be a rather long title in German (Die Kantaten von Johann Sebastian Bach), which is given in the ref anyway, - do you think it helps the English reader at this point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh OK, don't worry then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- That would be a rather long title in German (Die Kantaten von Johann Sebastian Bach), which is given in the ref anyway, - do you think it helps the English reader at this point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- You could word it like "The keys and time signatures are taken from xxx, a book by the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr which features facts about the cantatas".
- Do you think the title conveys how general that book is? meaning that facts about other cantatas can also be sourced to it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2016 (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:
Looks fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)