Talk:O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RHM22 (talk · contribs) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I just finished reading and reviewing your article. I have presented a few notes below for your consideration. I really enjoyed the article, and it's nearly just right for GA status.-RHM22 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reading so soon. I was ready to polish a bit more, - now I have your great help, thank you! --GA

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• This sentence in the lede section: "Based on a text by the court poet Salomo Franck who stayed close to the prescribed Gospel about the meeting of Jesus and Nicodemus, he set ideas beginning with "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"." is very confusing. Could that be reworded to make it a bit more clear? It's easy to understand later in the article, but I would be left confused if I only read the lede. Also, I usually like to put the first letter of a quote (if it's capitalized in the original) inside brackets, like "[f]our score and seven years ago...", but that is just a personal preference.

tried a simple summary, if too simple, say so. --GA

It looks good, except for one part: "...court poet Salomo Franck who stayed close to the prescribed Gospel..." It's unclear who or what the subject is. If the subject is the text, then it should be "...court poet Salomo Franck, which stayed close to the prescribed Gospel..." In other words, it's unclear if you're saying that Franck was a devout man who closely followed the Gospels, or if his writing (the text) closely follows the wording of the Gospel.-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• As a minor note, I would probably delink the numbers in the table (which currently link to other sections of the article). That seems to be discouraged by the MOS, and it's not really necessary anyway.

They are linked in the two articles which have tables of movements, BWV 12 and BWV 22. --GA

As long as that is accepted precedent in other classical music articles, then it's fine by me.-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the fourth movement (I have indeed, o bridegroom of my soul), is 'O' purposefully left uncapitalized? It's usually capitalized in the same way 'I' would be.

It's copied from the source. --GA

Seems fine, then. 'O' is usually capitalized, but it's not a rule and not everyone does it.-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the fifth movement, there is a quote from Whittaker, but no one named Whittaker is mentioned anywhere else in the article.

Perhaps you can advise - or I will ask friends: Gardiner (whom I quote) quotes him, mentioning only his last name (as if everyone knew ...). I have not yet found out who, - not one of Wikipedia's Whittakers. Can you phrase that? --GA

Hm, that's a tough one. Do you think it could be this fellow?-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good find, but unlikely, composer not musicologist. Will ask Tim. the one! [1] - looks like he deserves an article here also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Reference 10 (Grob, 2012) isn't in the bibliography, but Grob, 2014 is.

Thanks, fixed. (Thou shalt not copy ...) --GA

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is focused and covers the subject concisely and thoroughly.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The topic is presented neutrally without bias or POV.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable, with no apparent edit wars or conflicts.

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images presented in the article are, suitable, public domain and are correctly and appropriately captioned.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is mostly well-written and cited to reliable sources. However, I have a few concerns, which I have presented above. The GAN is currently on hold.-RHM22 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you. Will go to FA after adding background and more detail on the music. 300 years this year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Gerda: It looks good, except for a couple remaining (minor) quibbles, which I've stated above.-RHM22 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, great, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it looks good to me now. Another editor restored some of the original text to the lede, but I changed it to make clear the subject, so it's all right as it is. I think this is ready to pass.-RHM22 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

translation of title?

Hello, I've made a couple of edits (hopefully not enough to destabilize anything) but have a question about whether heiliges modifies Geist or Bad. I seems most writers go for the former, though Boyd (Cambridge Composer Companions) says "O holy bath of spirit and water". Sparafucil (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope the translation, giving two versions of many, is clear: most writers want the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit in there, but in German grammar, "heiliges" clearly modifies bath (das Bad), it would be "Heiliger Geist" (or "Der heilige Geist" in declination). It still means, of course, that the bath (of baptism) is holy because of the Spirit. To make things more complicated: I am afraid that English would have no way to say in so few syllables that baptism is both a Geistbad (spiritual bath or Spirit-bath) and Wasserbad (water bath) ;) - There's a sigh in one of the translations, Ambrose, I believe. - Thanks for helping and thinking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The currently given translation sounds ludicrous. But never mind that - it's the second i in "heilige" that puzzles me. Many English readers will be familiar with the first four words of Stille Nacht, and know that "heilige" has three syllables. So why does this article mostly omit the second i? I'm sure there's a good reason, but the article ought to say what it is. Maproom (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

In German, poets and others are free to omit syllables, - that should be explained somewhere generally, not in this article ;) - Writing it, I couldn't believe that we don't have an article Baroque literature. We take the spelling of Bach cantata titles as given by the BWV, even in the many cases where they differ from todays regulated ways, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Text

About the text in the lead, we had

Based on a text by the court poet Salomo Franck who stayed close to the prescribed Gospel about the meeting of Jesus and Nicodemus, he set ideas beginning with "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".

After the review noted correctly that this leaves open if Franck was a pious man or stayed close to the gospel in this particular text, I tried to simplify, and also to give a citation for the biblical quote:

The text was written by the court poet Salomo Franck who kept it close to the prescribed gospel about the meeting of Jesus and Nicodemus, discussing "man be born of water and of the Spirit" (John 3:5). Franck derives thoughts about baptism and man's condition in need of God's grace.

Now we are more or less back to the first, - was that result of an edit conflict or should we discuss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I modified it so it's good enough for GA standards. However, I prefer Gerda's wording and I think something like that will probably be needed if taken to FAC.-RHM22 (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)