Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

An Wasserflüssen Babylon

[edit]
(
)
Copy of Reincken's work by Bach
Copy of Reincken's work by Bach
  • Reviewed: to come Hans Klumbach
  • Comment: ..., which is one of two of his oldest manuscripts, found again in 2005/06[2] - there's plenty of news. We don't see a thing on the image but is RARE ;) - We just had Innocent Victims where we also didn't see a thing.

Converted from a redirect by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Most everything looks good (long enough, timing fits, no copyvio, neutral, interesting hook--and cool image to go with!), just needs a QPQ and then(ETA: done!) ideally an update of the references in the entry to confirm the hook? Given image, it seems like they almost certainly exist; but at the moment that specific sentence has a "not in citation given" flag that's probably worth reconciling before moving the DYK forward. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It took me a while to read the article ;) - When I nominated, it was a short little thing. I managed to review. What's not in the citation seems to be the exact year, but "as a boy" should be sourced. Perhaps you can tell the two experts what you like and what not, better than I could? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look Gerda Arendt! Indeed this is well outside my own expertise; I just clicked through to the link to check, and as best I can tell, I don't see the bit about copying the manuscript in those Programme Notes? I mean obviously he did or you wouldn't have an image of it, but would you mind either pointing out to me the part that says that, which I'm just misunderstanding/overlooking (highly likely), or suggest a different source we can use as the reference, just so we can remove that flag? I wouldn't be concerned except for it being the hook. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I found this but don't know what the experts will think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I've just found a book ref as well. Mathsci and Francis Schonken, does one or both of these seem reliable to you? Any other comments before the DYK goes forward? Thanks for having a look! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • the article is unstable, and needs considerable work. The issue mentioned above was addressed by me on the talk page, Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon#Reincken/Bach stories involving "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", "1700" topic. Seems nor Gerda, nor anyone else, took the time to even look at it. All in all the article is a hack job (translated from German Wikipedia without adding proper references). The German Wikipedia article no longer carries "nach den Vorgaben Martin Bucers" (while unprovable by reliable sources) yet that phrase is still adopted in the English version without a source in sight that confirms it. Etc. – I could still go on for considerable time, but prefer to devote that to improving the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback; yes by all means, focus on the entry as you wish! WP:VOLUNTEER and whatnot. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken's decision to remove any mention of Gerda's DYK hook in the lead was not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, the hook doesn't have to be in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It was not in the main body. I have all the source material in the reference. Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Re. "It was not in the main body" – incorrect, it has always been in the main body, in every version I've seen. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Re. "... Francis Schonken's decision to remove any mention of Gerda's DYK hook in the lead ..." – incorrect, I didn't remove any mention of the hook from the lead. I take offence of Gerda Arendt's "Never mind" in their response to the false accusation: sort of shows they didn't check, though their "the hook doesn't have to be in the lead" is of course correct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The source proposed above for the hook (www.thescrollensemble.com) doesn't really cover the hook. I discussed a better source on the article's talk page. For me, this confirms once more that people write here without really checking. Over-all the situation has hardly improved. Again, I could write a lot about aspects where the current version of the article fails, but prefer to improve rather than to write reams of text here. As for this DYK, with all these problems: hardly a good idea, so I continue to oppose until problems are really addressed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Noted and agreed again that spending your time improving the entry sounds like a wise choice. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The suggestions here seem to be purely procedural. Consensus so far indicates that the article is fair at the moment. There will always be new perspectives on the content: since the topic concerns the Reformation—a very wide-ranging topic—that will always be the case. Looking at other Lutheran Hymns, the article here seems to be in a much better state than most articles of this kind. Vater unser im Himmelreich is comparable. Only a few articles on Lutheran articles to have been created at the moment to judge by Category:Lutheran_hymns. Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Anyhow, with the new Beißwenger content ([3]), the hook as written can not be maintained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The DYK hook still seems to be going smoothly, despite recent edits. On articles like Lutheran hymns, things go slowly by consensus. For example I created the "Hymn tune" on Vorbis-lilypond, choosing my own tempo and a cor anglais as instrument. I used that because soft reeds are usual registrations for this type of piece (as mentioned by organists like Stinson). It's not perfect, but OK for the moment. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, "... which Bach copied as a boy ..." in the current hook proposal can not be said in Wikipedia's voice while at least one prominent Bach scholar (Beißwenger) doubts the contention (considers it at least unproven): what can not be said in Wikipedia's voice is unsuitable for a DYK hook (i.e. intended to be published on Wikipedia's mainspace). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that there are serious difficulties for two of the sources. Several Bach scholars, including some cited in reliable secondary sources, have given an informal description of the recent discoveries of Maul & Wollny. They certainly have given a reasonable informal account for a general readership. On the other hand the Bärenreiter Facsimile of 2006 and the encyclopedic tome "The Routledge Research Companion to Johann Sebastian Bach" by 2017 are intended for specialists, way beyond the competence of wikipedia: the first reference—which is only viewable in a non-borrowable music reference library—is at a graduate level; and the same is true of the Research Companion, "aimed at masters and doctoral students" and featuring a galaxy of specially chosen Bach scholars from all over the world. That level of expertise—e.g. deciding whether the handwriting of a relative can be identified with certainty—seems too technical for both sources; where something is too subtle, too ambiguous or just undecidable, only an informal "general readership" description can be given.
What Gerda suggested in the hook—perhaps with "youth" instead of "boy"—is appropriate. If a wikipedia article tries to be too technical, it cannot reasonably speak in "wikipedia's voice", whether the language is that of German, American/British or Esperanto (one of the three options for "An Wasserflüssen Babylon") ☺ Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I meant something different when I said "in Wikipedia's voice": I meant something that doesn't need WP:in-text attribution. If Kirsten Beißwenger, a leading Bach scholar, says something isn't proven, you can't take a stance as Wikipedia implying that it is proven. You can only quote the leading Bach scholars, such as Peter Wollny, who say that it is proven, with an in-text attribution to such scholars. And then quote the opposing view, with an in-text attribution to a leading scholar that says that it isn't proven (to keep within WP:NPOV). All of that is less suitable for a hook on the main page, and anyhow requires the current hook proposal to be rewritten. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
There has been borderline edit-warring by Francis Schonken as he edit-wars in his preferred version of the lede. That does not represent "wikipedia's voice". Bach scholars have ascertained that BWV 653 was written in the period 1740–1750, in Bach's late maturity. That chronology conflicts with Francis Schonken's preferred lede: it is quite misleading for general readers. As a comic touch, in this edit[4] Francis Schonken wrote the edit summary Still incoherent, see talk. Those comments, however, were all written dictée by Francis Schonken. On this rare occasion, he seems to have been accurate. ☺ Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this what is normally called "know all"?[5] Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Remains to be done:
  • Address the issues of two banner tags in the article (lead section; history & context section)
  • Address the issues of seven in-line tags in the musical settings section (unless such minor tags are less a problem to go to the next phase of DYK)
  • Update DYK proposal (ALT text proposal; indicate correct source(s); update proposed image caption)
  • (don't know whether there are still other things to do)
I'd invite Gerda Arendt to take, if possible, an active role in sorting these last issues; at least, if their time is limited, indicate a direction for how to address the two banner issues at the article talk page (I fear neither is going to fall off the page automatically, and already spent more time than I should have in trying to get these issues sorted). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Innisfree987 is an appropriate evaluator for the DYK and I would like to thank him for his comments which seem fair. I would also like to thank Gerda for initiating the DYK and for her offer to help me on the article. Gerda did that unprompted and it was kind of her to do so.
The hook seems fine. There is a problem, however, for the DYK image. The high resolution image from commons was uploaded a number of years back (2015), but the source is no longer available: it returns an error and I have been unable to locate the link. It is possible to give some kind of documentation for the source, but not necessarily on-line. The official documentation of Michael Maul and Peter Wollny, which needs to be verified, is a reference section available in a music library (in that case I used the Anderson Room in the University Library, Cambridge) but is not available on-line. The bare link to the 2006 publication of Bärenreiter Verlag is available, but that does not seem to be enough at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, both. I suggest that we focus on the hymn and its creation, and mention only what is certain about Reincken and Bach? We need to work on the Bucer thing then, but can move details on Reincken to his bio, and details on Bach to Orgelbüchlein? Sorry that I was not more helpful, but in March, I focus on women, Passion and Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda. Bucer is not relevant here, nor any wikipedia "hack work", nor any of the original organ works by Bach, such as Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes (BWV 653 from "An Wasserflüssen Babylon"). Only the copying of Reincken's chorale prelude when Bach was a teenager are important for this DYK hook. The image, however, has not been properly sourced on Commons: I know how to rectify that but it will take a day or so. Mathsci (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, that all sounds completely appropriate to me, and the effort is much appreciated! Just drop me a ping when I should have another look. Thank you all! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I have found a properly sourced image on Commons now available on Bärenreiter Verlag. The image was in the "extras" section of the facsimile. See File:ReinckenAnWasser.jpg for the links there. Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
In the hook, perhaps we should say "young man" or "teenager", instead of boy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
"young musician" seems like the best description, given the context. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • As mentioned on the user talk page of Gerda Arendt, the current lead follows the same spirit as Gerda's DYK hook. One of the sentence is essentially adapted from Gerda, with some tweaks by several other users:
"The arrangements of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" by Reincken and Pachelbel—along with the chorale prelude "Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g’mein," BuxWV 210 by Dietrich Buxtehude—comprise the earliest extant transcriptions of Bach, copied on a 1700 organ tablature in Lüneberg when he has still a youth; remarkably, they were only unearthed in Weimar in 2005."
Gerda seemed happy with that and wrote "Thank you!" Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This has been stalled for far too long. Since "youth" has been suggested as a replacement from "boy" (and I've just replaced "has" with "was" in the above article sentence) and fits a Bach of 15 (or soon-to-be 15), here is ALT1 with just that change:
Reviewer needed to confirm that ALT1 is adequately sourced, and given the extensive changes since the original review, should probably recheck to be sure that the "within policy" criteria such as neutrality and close paraphrasing are still met. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you BlueMoonset, I'm afraid the delay (from my POV as previous reviewer) is largely based on debate about whether or not this hook is accurate (see the last paragraph of in the entry, just above "Further reading"). Suggestions for hooks on other topics from the entry would be welcome if that might help resolve this nom faster! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
We could say anything from just "a paraphrase of Psalm 137 which inspired Baroque composers", but Bach's early copy seems the most unusual fact. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I am comfortable with the alternative of User:BlueMoonset. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • To address the debate, how about this version:
Although I'm not sure how effective it would be as a non-lead hook, and "some scholars believe" may be too far in the weasel-wording direction. Still, I offer it up as a possibility. If it isn't acceptable, then someone needs to propose a new hook very soon; the nomination is over two months old. (However, the one about a paraphrase that inspired Baroque composers is pretty uninteresting, in my view, and I like Baroque music.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
That version seems inaccurate and misleading. A slight variant of the current lead is, "Reincken's chorale fantasia on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" forms part of the earliest extant transcription of Bach, copied in colophon in 1700 in Lüneburg when he was still a youth; remarkably, they were only unearthed in Weimar in 2005." So for example this would be accurate:
Another attempt to wreck the DYK hook and ignore consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  • Proposing,
ALT4: ... that the hymn tune of the 16th-century "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" ("By the rivers of Babylon") was largely popularized through a 17th-century hymn text, "Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld"?
IMVHO the Reincken → Bach topic (respectively one and two steps remote of the 16th-century hymn) is a bit far from the core of the page's topic; besides, there is a An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken) article now (... survived AfD), where the Reincken → Bach topic is better placed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Still looking for a reviewer! Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The article still has multiple cleanup banners (as well as many harv linking errors). It is not currently in shape for DYK, two weeks after you wrote this, three weeks after the disruption above, and over three months after the date for which it was originally nominated. At some point you have to say enough is enough. But mostly I'm just writing here because I think "Super flum, baby!" should be the new hip expression of how cool something is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
User:David Eppstein, the issue of Gerda's DYK hook is just a spin-off of discussions concerning arbitration: please see in particular User talk:Newyorkbrad#Comments and some of the preceding comments on NYB's user talk page.
As explained on my own user talk page, I have been seriously ill—most recently in A&E/isolation ward on 18–27 May 2018. (You also know me as a wikipedia mathematician: in RL, I am a friend and colleague of User:R.e.b.) I am still due to have two follow-up hospital appointments: stroke tomorrow and cardiology in a fortnight; I am still unwell and being treated in hospital, in conjunction with my GP. Mathsci (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Please get well soon, and tell R.e.b. we miss him. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Best wishes for your health. I wonder a bit if we could just get a much shorter article in shape for simple DYK, and then return for GA or even FA. Compare Nun danket all, - much more could be said, but for DYK, it's enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think ALT3 is still fine. Baroque music ... Johann Sebastian Bach ... sounds like a wonderful idea. Wan't it originally your idea, Gerda? Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'd be happy to support an effort to "... get a much shorter article in shape for simple DYK ...", just say what I can do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be best if Mathsci did the (temporary) pruning. Simply: follow the DYK rules, what's not sourced, should be commented out, and unused sources the same. Probably the split-tag also has to be resolved. - Francis, we have so many red links, I just saw Hannoversches Gesangbuch, - why don't you do your things, and Mathsci does his? I'll check if I can fix harv error, which are often just caused by misspellings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'd prefer you did the (temporary) pruning, and I'll support you in that effort. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I fixed two harv errors but am not even able to understand the referencing when it comes to two authors. I have enough to do, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
It has been proposed, at WP:AN#Bach editing, to return to a referencing system Gerda can work with (application of WP:CITEVAR). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, I told you that I am still seriously ill (AKI). At the moment my BP is out of control. Is it your intention to ignore that, as if it doesn't matter? Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why I suggest Gerda do the temporary pruning: better for your health. Then you can return to it whenever you please after the DYK appeared on main page, without time pressure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I asked Gerda. Please could she reply? Mathsci (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken writes, "better for your health." What does he mean by that? Mathsci (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I meant: less worries for you. The fact that Gerda could get her DYK passed may make you happy for her, which also may have a soothing effect. Which in turn may mean a net benefit for your health (at least no negative effect, which there may be if this is all too worrisome for you). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
"better for your health," "less worries for you." That makes no sense at all to me. Francis Schonken should probably stop making a running commentary at the moment, unless he is a medical expert.
Gerda, at the moment, following the trauma of 18–27 May and its aftermath, I can only make superficial edits that do not involve prolonged and sustained concentration (i.e. hours of thought). In music, in art history, in mathematics (e.g. contraction (operator theory)), etc, I am just too ill to concentrate. Hopefully things will improve. Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: please commit to this, I mean the "... the (temporary) pruning ..." which you proposed. I don't say "now, immediately" (if you're too busy with other things), but it seems the best way ahead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Gerda has asked for my help. I do not agree in any way with the "plans" Francis Schonken seems to be proposing. Indeed his proposals at the moment frighten me. Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I did not propose any plan:
  • Gerda proposed "... (temporary) pruning ..."
  • I suggest Gerda execute that plan
If that frightens you, I suggest you try to have a bit more confidence in Gerda Arendt. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I had a bit more time, and fixed all "red" error messages regarding citation. There are still some about unused references but I think that should not be in the way of DYK. If that's wrong, I can move them to Further reading. The tag about splitting also should not be in the way, because I think it happened.
for ALT3. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup. Re. "The tag about splitting also should not be in the way, because I think it happened." – not exactly: currently it is a WP:CONTENT FORK. The issue is discussed at Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn, as linked from the Split template, and I'd be wary to split that discussion over multiple venues.
Opposing ALT3, for reasons explained above. I have no problem with
ALT4: ... that the hymn tune of the 16th-century "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" ("By the rivers of Babylon") was largely popularized through a 17th-century hymn text, "Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I formatted that a bit, and slowly get to the point not to care anymore. Why pipe the Psalm? My version:
ALT5: ... that the tune of the 16th-century hymn "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", after Psalm 137, became popular with the 17th-century Passion text "Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Or, if that's too much German:
ALT6: ... that the tune of the 16th-century hymn "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", after Psalm 137, became popular with a 17th-century Passion text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I can live with ALT4, 5 and 6, preferring ALT4. Re. "Why pipe the Psalm?": recognisability for an English-language readership. The psalm number is less recognisable (and BTW, ambiguous: Catholics use a different number for the psalm). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the word psalm (whatever number, - yes I know there's different numbering) may be more helpful than three titles in one hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that an English title (certainly when it is the translation of the German title that indicates the topic of the DYK article) should be a problem at all. The "... Wasserflüssen ..." title can not be avoided, while the DYK topic; The "... Lämmlein ..." title could be avoided thus:
ALT7: ... that the hymn tune of the 16th-century "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" ("By the rivers of Babylon") was largely popularized with the text of a 17th-century Passion hymn?
Readership may be familiar (or not) with psalms; they may be familiar (or not) with German titles; when they're familiar with neither (try to put yourself in the shoes of such reader), they'll at least understand the translation of the German title. When you'd prefer the word "psalm" in the DYK nonetheless: as said, I'm fine with both ALT5 and ALT6, although neither is the one I'd prefer most – that would be ALT7 now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Interested in compromise, lets focus on ALT7, striking most others. I find the link to hymn tune distracting - always trying to link to the bolded article first - but not enough to make another ALT ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed for ALT7. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • - approve ALT7 - this appears to be the compromise hook that all parties agree on. The hook is neutral, within guidelines, and provides some interesting historical context. The claim is found in the article, where it is directly cited to a reliable source. Please note that I have checked the hook only, and presume previous reviews of article length, copyvio, etc. to be complete. I can/will do this additional work if deemed necessary, but I'm of the opinion that this has had so many eyeballs already such work would be redundant at this point. Move forward, yes? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @78.26: re. "I ... presume previous reviews ... to be complete" – they are not: they came to a halt when this went to AN, and the article has changed considerably since the previous reviewer withdrew. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Alright. Article is new enough, as it was nominated 7 days after redirect conversion. Article meets the length requirements by more than 10 times. Article is neutrally written. Earwig found a "copyvio" at "oll.libertyfund.org", which is an obvious mirror of this article. Other minor matches are the result of book titles. No close paraphrasing, plagiarism, or other copyvios detected. There is an issue with citations (uncited paragraphs), which I will leave to the end. Hook itself approved per above. QPQ complete. Proposed hook image is in public domain and is ok to use, but frankly it does not make a striking image at small size.
The only issue is that paragraphs 5 ("Between 26–27 July 1783"), 6 ("In all, three personages"), 7 ("After 1750, Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg") , and 8 ("The eldest son of Bach") of the "Vocal settings" section have no citations. I presume this is an accidental result of reorganization, as they hardly seem to be original research. When this is fixed, the article will be ready for and deserving of main page exposure. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I was bold and commented the paragraphs out. They are interesting, but not about this particular hymn. They can be returned with references. - Several are unused, and may be for them, but I don't have the time to check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
not my preferred solution, but that works. (Yes, my preferred solution probably involves difficult labor.) Now the article is merely 8.6 times long enough. All paragraphs have inline citations. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@78.26, re. "Proposed hook image...": ALT7 does not have a proposed hook image, and the image proposed for earlier ALTs does not connect to ALT7: the image is not an example of the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" tune becoming popular with the text of a later hymn (the pictured manuscript refers to the original hymn text exclusively). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/An_Wasserflüssen_Babylon&oldid=847268576"