Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2022 [1].

---

Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Bach's longest motet, with a complex text alternating hymn stanzas from "Jesu, meine Freude" with biblical text from Paul's Letter to the Romans. The music, in a symmetrical arrangement of 11 movements, displays various vocal scorings (from 3 to 5 voices) and compositional variation and finesse. For the longest time, the motet was believed to have been composed for a certain funeral, but recent scholarship questioned that. - The article has a long history, I came in late, Francis Schonken brought it to GA quality, - I wonder how he could receive credit. It received a peer review earlier this year, with good comments by Amitchell125 and Aza 24. There is no similar article, because it's a unique artwork. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In response to concerns of several reviewers, I changed two things substantially: I expanded the lead, and I tried to unite the two tables showing the complex structure of the work. Please check those two sections once more, see if your points were covered, and suggest further improvements. I'll go over the individual questions now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Jesu,_meine_Freude_(Bach)_Anfangstakte.png is tagged as lacking author info, and should include a tag for the original work
• File:Jesu_Meine_Freude_Praxis_Cruger_1653_-_extract.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! GRuban, can you please help in a field I'm not sure I do the right thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I fixed the complaining templates on both pages, but not sure what "should include a tag for the original work" meant. It's a score of a Bach composition, do you mean you want a link to our page for the composition, meaning Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, this article in question? --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a link, but a copyright tag, reflecting that the copyright of the work itself has expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

On first read-through this is very solid, with a cohesive narrative. It does a good job outlining what's of interest to the reader. I suspect I will have some nitpicks that I'll either correct myself or post here for clarity, soon. It's close to ready. --Laser brain (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments:

• "Bach set both in a symmetrical structure" - I do not understand what this means without an explanation or context.

  What would you expect? --GA

  Please check new lead. ---GA

• Similarly in the second para, I don't know what "free setting" means.

  The other movements follow rather strict rules, but that one is free. How to say that? --GA

  Please check new lead. ---GA

• "the genre was regarded as antiquated" by whom?

  Nobody specific, the genre just wasn't as fashionable any more as it had been in the Renaissance and early Baroque. --GA

• "which at some point or another" is too informal and imprecise for this type of writing.

  That corner of the article was written by Francis. How can we say - what I think he intended - that there is great uncertainty for many works of the 15 if they really are motets by Bach (doubting "motet, doubting "by JS Bach", or both), but for a solid five, there was no question. Aza, can you help with this phrasing, perhaps? Split the sentence? --GA

  I changed it, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the large majority of his vocal church music" - similarly, this is imprecise writing. Use "a majority of" if it's more than half. If it's closer to 100%, then I'd recommend writing something like "most of".

  "most of" taken, talking about around 200 cantatas plus four-part chorale settings. I wonder if we should name the few 5-part works: Magnificat and Mass in B minor? --GA

  I added the two works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The hymn tune appears in two variants in the uneven movements of the motet." Is any more detail available? What kind of variants?

  That is clarified in the individual movements, and the dating. It seems to suggest that the composition wasn't written at one time. --GA

  The variant is small, in only one measure, but for musicologist, it gives them a clue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Article contains mixed American and British English (harmonization, analyse)

  I'll check. It should be British, - please feel free to just change when you see the other unless it's in a quotation. --GA

This takes me up to Movements. I will leave more comments soon. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking closer. The article was written by many users, which explains mixed spellings. I'll look, but have a few tasks with a time stamp first. The symmetrical construction of the whole composition, as pictured under "Structure and scoring", is the key aspect of it, and how could it be said to be understood by you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I just needed to keep reading. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• Made some small edits for clarity and consistency.

  Thank you for those. I changed one, please check, about the last movement having the same music as the first. --GA

• Can you provide the passage(s) from Jones p. 203 that support the following text: "Jones noted that the tenor part is particularly expressive. The last movement has the same music as the different text of the last stanza, creating a frame that encloses the whole work"

  I'll have to look, but the tenor thing was again not written by me, and the same music of first and last is illustrated just below. --GA

  From what I can tell, this was derived from the following excerpt (from p. 203): "A1 and A6 are identical four-part chorales, creating an outer frame. [...] The musically identical outer movements, A1 and A6, are plain four-part chorales, albeit of great beauty and with an exceptionally expressive tenor part." DanCherek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, Dan, that's helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Explanation needed for "rhetorical homophony"

  I wish I could ask Francis. --GA

  User:Laser brain, I began by grouping the sentences differently; the following sentence is perhaps an explanation. RandomCanadian, do you think you could help with the music, perhaps just of the soprano first line? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt: Homophony, as you must well know it, involves multiple voices (singing together with the same rhythm and usually same text; as opposed to polyphony). The explanation is already given in the previous sentence and in movement two. I'll try rewriting it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "While the soprano sings the chorale melody, the lower voices intensify the gesture dramatically with word painting: 'weg' is repeated several times in fast succession." Is there some significance to this word? What is the translation?

  Yes, significant, and hard to translate. "away", and it's given in the first line of the paragraph. In the St John Passion, the text is "Weg, weg mit dem. Kreuzige, kreuzige ..." = Away, away with that one. Crucify, crucify ..." - Should there be more translation in this article? Or in the hymn article. How about English for the beginnings in the table of movements? --GA

• "Performers of Jesu, meine Freude have to decide..." The choir are the performers.. wouldn't a director or producer decide? The end of that long sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would break it up to more clearly articulate what the performance options are.

  Well, the intention is rather "whoever wants to perform it", and decision processes differ. Some small ensembles don't even have a conductor. The smallest group performing it are just five singers, because instruments are not prescribed (but would have been normal at Bach's time). Suggestions? --GA

• "based on the motet's first (=11th) and seventh movements" I'm not sure what the parenthetical is expressing.

  Again by Francis, and meaning again that the music of the first movement is the same as of the last (=eleventh) movement. I assume that CPE Bach rendered the setting without text. We can drop the (=11th) if it's confusing. --GA

That's all from me for now. It's in fine shape. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking closely, User:Laser brain. Sorry about not replying sooner, but I travelled over last days and managed only some of the most time-critical things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries on the timeframe. I do have serious concerns, though, about how this can move forward without the involvement of someone who has access to and understanding of the sources cited. There are parts of this article that are somewhat inaccessible, although I understand a previous editor wrote them. --Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, we talk about the most prolific editor for Bach's biography, list of works (98%), compositions, Baroque music in general. I wonder how far AGF goes for book sources on historic material. I'd call Mathsci, the other expert on Bach, if he wasn't in an interaction ban with Francis, so could probably be blocked for any comment. Sometimes Wikipedia is that crazy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's unfortunate when user's behavior problems affect their ability to create content. I've seen far too much of that in my years here. Anyway, how do we proceed? I don't see how this can progress without ability to answer questions about the content and cited sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Jones the only specific source at issue, or others as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That specific source, yes, but there are also several places in the article where the writing is unclear (to me, anyway) and it's problematic that the principal author is not available for inquiries. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Noted, but where there is an issue with source interpretation IMO the solution is to get hold of the source, which Dan has offered below. That applies regardless of who originally added the source, and allows for issues of wording to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In the Jones source, some pages are missing in the google version, but how about AGF there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of AGF. If I don't understand what's written here, I'd like to refer to the source so I can read it myself and try to improve the text. --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm out for today, but think that we can check what exactly is unclear, and if it can we reworded, dropped, or a better source found. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have institutional access to Jones 2013 and can send pages from it to anyone here who needs it. I replied to Laser brain's comment about the tenor part in the first movement. Happy to supply a longer excerpt if needed. DanCherek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, can I perhaps have all of p.203? It's cited several times and some of the passages are unclear to me (c.f. "rhetorical homophony" above); I'd like to read the source so I can improve the writing here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, sent via email. Gerda (and anyone else), let me know if you'd like me to email it to you too. DanCherek (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Laser brain, please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Will do! --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support on re-reading with recent revisions in place. It's in great shape. --Laser brain (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This nomination is nearly at the three week mark and is showing little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I found supporters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi TRM, Amitchell125, did you guys have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from GeneralPoxter

Should be leaving a review by the end of the week, but I have a lot of outside work on my plate right now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead/infobox

• It may have been composed for a funeral, but scholars have come to doubt the dating (from 1912) to a specific funeral in Leipzig in July 1723, a few months after Bach had moved there. I found the use of the parenthetical to be somewhat confusing in the lead. Looking further in the article indicates that it meant the dating was made in 1912, but I originally thought it meant the scholars began to doubt the dating in 1912. Maybe a better summary of the Time of origin section here would be to say that though some scholars considered the work was composed for a funeral in 1732, others have proposed alternative occassions and dates.
• Rest of lead reads fine, and infobox looks good.

  please check the new lead ---GA

History

• exceeding that of a standard SATB choir of soprano, alto, tenor and bass, Isn't soprano, alto, tenor, and bass redundant since it's already implied in "standard SATB choir"? This explicit listing of voices also contributes to the number of commas in this sentence, which can be confusing to read.

  taken with thanks! ---GA

• Would it be misleading to characterize Johann Michael Bach as J.S. Bach's "ancestor" since the two are not related by blood?

  Thanks for that catch, - what can we do? Is there a different word? ---GA

  Maybe a more general term like "relative"? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  thank you, taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Around 15 extant compositions were recognised by musicologists as a motet by Bach (BWV 118, 225–231, 1083, 1149, Anh. 159–165), Jesu, meine Freude is one of only five (BWV 225–229) which have always been considered as a Bach motet. Besides the comma splice (in red) and apparent subject-object disagreement ("around 15 extant compositions were recognised as ... a motet by Bach ", "one of only five...which have always been considered as a Bach motet") [should be "motets by Bach" not "a motet by Bach"?], "were recognised" just seems a bit ambiguous here, since it is not revealed until the end of the sentence that these works were not always considered motets. Maybe rephrase "were recognised" to something like "are now recognised" or "were once recognised" (depending on which is the case) to give the reader a better clue at the beginning of the sentence that this list of works were not always considered motets.

  you are right, and let's think, - postponing for now, - perhaps a complete rewrite would be best, focusing on that BWV 227 was always a core motet ---GA

  GeneralPoxter, I tried now to reword it, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Compositions with five-part movements are the Magnificat, written in 1723 at the beginning of his tenure in Leipzig, and the Mass in B minor, compiled towards the end of his life. This sentence could be better linked to the previous by prefacing it with something along the lines of "uncommon examples of five-part movements can be found in".

  taken ---GA

GeneralPoxter, thank you for your comments, and please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Structure and scoring

• Only the alto, the middle voice in the motet's SSATB setting, sings in all movements. Is it necessary to clarify that the alto is the middle voice, given that the order of voices is already specified in the previous sentence?

  taken --GA

• In great variety, the fifth movement is a free setting of the chorale stanza... It is unclear to me what "great variety" refers to in this sentence.

  added that variety of chorale settings --GA

• its source naming the stanza in the hymn movements and the Bible verses in the other movements Maybe more concise rephrasing: "its text source in either Franck's hymn or the Bible"?

  taken --GA

• Any specification of what the dots mean in the Form column of the table? (I assume they're supposed to indicate the symmetry of the work?)

  yes - any suggestions how to clarify? --GA

  Not quite sure, but maybe something on the lines of: "and its form with the number of dots indicating the corresponding movements in the motet's symmetrical structure"? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  I tried something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Repeated links to verses from Romans in both the Table and in the Movements section? Also note that movement 2 has no verse attribution in Movements. I also suggest introducing each Epistle-based movement as simply "The xth movement sets Romans 8:[verse number] ...", which would make the text clearer in my opinion. (by referring to the other verses as "verse x from the Epistle" could lead to confusion since the verse numbers pertain only to chapter 8 of Romans, not Romans as a whole)

  Do you mean there should be duplicate links. What would The Rambling Man say? - The other taken, but will implement later. --GA

  I am suggesting that they shouldn't be linked again, since a) they've been linked in the table already and b) the verses are already provided in full in the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Now Romans specified for all five, and link removed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• The sopranos often move in "beatific" third parallels. Shouldn't this be "parallel thirds"? Also Jones gives no indication of the frequency/distribution of parallel thirds to justify that they are used "often". From my impressions of both Jones and the score itself, parallel thirds in the sopranos are most frequently used in the first half of the movement. So maybe restrict the analysis to 'The sopranos move in "beatific" parallel thirds in the opening when singing of "life in Christ Jesus"', which better aligns with Jones? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  will check that one later, off again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Now taken unchanged, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Five voices take part in a dramatic illustration, as they depict defiance, standing firmly, and singing, in the same rhetorical style as the beginning of the second movement, here often expressed in powerful unison. This sentence is particularly confusing with all the comma breaks. Could this be reworded and/or broken into two sentences for clarity?

  tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Newer version is much clearer. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...is set in a homophonic adagio with deeply unsettling harmonies: "not of Christ" Notion of the harmonies being "deeply unsettling" doesn't seem to be supported by Jones p. 205, and the Dellal source appears to redirect to the website's home page, so I can't verify whether this is supported there.

  I searched for that, and found many interesting things, but not that. (I don't remember to have written the line, - "unsettling" not being word I knew. Leaves me too tired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Back: I will look at the Jones more, and found a thesis which is very detailed, perhaps too much so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Pamela Dellal seems no longer on Emmanuel Music but her own site. Oh dear! I fixed this one and BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  I removed the "harmonies" as not mentioned by Jones, - and Dellal was there just for the translation. I looked at the thesis more, but am reluctant to introduce it at this stage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's fine by me to omit the thesis, since theses are rather iffy sources in the first place. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• the lower voices intensify the gesture dramatically with word painting: "weg" is repeated several times in fast succession. The use of word painting specifically on "weg" is not substantiated in Jones p. 203, and Graulich & Wolff and Dahn both appear to be scores w/ no accompanying analysis (thus can't be used to prove this claim).

  You see it in the score, though. Should that be used for a ref? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Repetition can be verified using the score, but whether this constitutes "dramatic" word painting seems more like analysis to me, which means WP:NOR probably applies. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  I keep looking, found this review: a reviewer singles out this movement (and one more) and writes: "Sie peitschte alle Schätze «weg, weg, weg!» mit einer Drastik, die an die Volkschöre der Johannes-Passion erinnerte." (She whipped all the treasures "away, away, away!" with a drasticness reminiscent of the folk choruses of the St John Passion.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  I dropped the drama and word painting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Should "Sarabande" be linked to the article on the dance?

  yes, done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps some overcitation in the first sentences of movements 3 and 11. Jacobi appears to be a superfluous source here, with its English translations not even being used in the article.

  understand, moved Jacobi, an interesting alternate translation, to where it's different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• This section appears to cover more than just Reception (it also includes performance and publication)

  That's a Francis special, who goes by centuries. I added to the header. --GA

• and is regarded by many as one of Bach's greatest motets. Is Cookson accepted to be reliable? They also mention Tovey's singling out of "Gute Nacht", which I think could be included in the article (using Tovey's original commentary as the source -- wherever that happens to be).

  Will check, Gardiner and Jones also single that movement out. --GA

  I combined the Cookson with another, and better gave Gardiner some space. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  New commentary looks good. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• The earliest extant of such chorale collections... Not sure if "extant" is used in correctly here, since it's an adjective not a noun.

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Some Gbooks/archive.org refs have url links to the specific page while others don't. Should adopt a consistent style on this. In addition, Gardiner 2013 appears to have page links, even though there is no preview available on Gbooks (at least for me).

  When a source is used for a specific page or continuous pages, it's usually given in the ref. Jones and others, however, mention the motet at various locations. The link typically goes to the most frequent one, and to the others where used, - at least that's the plan. --GA

  Gardiner: pages 350 to 352, no chapter header on 350, diagram on 351, particular text for central movement 352 - I'll switch the link to 351, for most important piece of info. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good then. What about Gardiner though? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not quite sure what you mean. I can see all pages of the passage in the 2013 book. If you don't see it, check out the liner notes for the recording, dated 2012. It's not word-by-word the same, but almost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm... Google Books seems to make some books previewable to some people while non-previewable to others. As long as some people can see it, then this is fine. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• See Dellal url redirect issue mentioned above

  replied there --GA

• See Cookson reliability issue mentioned above. "Many judges" seems to be a pretty ambitious claim on Cookson's part, and the lack of cited material in his review to support this is somewhat concerning.

  will back up --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Cookson has been adequately backed up w/ more scholarly sources. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Other sources appear fine.

Leaning towards a support here, but some issues need to be fixed. An interesting read! GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

All concerns in the review have been addressed, so I will be happy to Support this nomination now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

TRM

• Bach himself isn't linked in the lead which seems a little odd. In the prose (as well as the infobox).

  Please see below under Wehwalt who had the same question. --GA

  I don't see why Bach wouldn't be linked. Simple. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Projects Classical music and Opera have a convention: when a piece is linked, no link to the composer, because whoever doesn't know him can be sure to find him in the piece's article. Mozart's Requiem. Same for a group of pieces, no? - But I'm open for a solution linking motet without Easter egg and Bach also if you have one. Or should we accept that Easter egg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  But this is FAC and this article could end up on the main page where readers are not members of Projects Classical music. We shouldn't be beholden to arcane project rules to the detriment of the general public. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Bach is linked in the new lead. ---GA

• "for SSATB choir" this is unexplained (albeit linked) so it is intractable to most without clicking on it. And should it be choirs? or "an SSATB choir"? Right now it doesn't read correctly.

  I guess that most readers coming to this article know what SATB means, so will be able to understand SSATB choir, and it's one. There are many things I'd like to see in the lead, but not an explanation of a common abbreviation if we can avoid it. We say: "for cello", not "for a cello". --GA

  It's not a common abbreviation for all readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Of course not, therefore we have the link. BBC is not a common abbreviation, but we'd still not spell it out or explain, no? I added a bit: "a five-part (SSATB) choir". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Um, I think BBC is far more common than SSATB (which I have literally never heard of). We shouldn't be demanding readers click away from the article to get even a clue as to what this means. That you have to expand it in the article indicates its relative complexity, and we don't really ever expand "British Broadcasting Corporation" because it's almost universally known as BBC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  As long as our article name is SATB, and linked on around 1000 pages, I conclude that we don't have to write an explanation (beyond "five-part") in the lead. ---GA

  We still don't use abbreviations or initialisms before their explanations. So you could write it out in plain English and then abbreviate it so our readers don't have to hover over or click on a linked article. This is a MOS requirement, one which previously had issues with "technical terms" like "aggregate" so I'm sorry, it needs to be applied universally. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  (But you wouldn't spell out BBC?) - At that point in the lead, to say "for two sopranos, alto tenor and bass" is a distraction, and not even true for all movements. We can say just "five voices", without specifying which (which seems a disservice to those who know what SATB stands for), or we can pipe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  This is an article which will be read by non-experts. And no, I think BBC is universal, like NASA. SSATB is very much "in-universe". It's fine, we can agree to disagree on it, I have been railroaded in other reviews to "inline explanations" which don't require hover-over text or clicking through, and I find it grossly unreasonable that the same standards aren't applied across the board, but perhaps classical music is deemed more important than contemporary sports events, and therefore unexplained jargon is just fine. I don't think it is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• motet could be linked in the lead as well. In the prose I mean.

  The link supplied for Bach's motets leads to an article with a link to motet. Again, most people reading about one of Bach's 6 motets will already know what that is, plus motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. --GA

  I disagree. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Compare BWV 1, a recent FA: link to church cantata, not to cantata. - Again: motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. Sending someone there seems a needless detour, prepared or unprepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think technical terms should be linked. If the target article is sub-optimal, that's a different matter. This article needs to be accessible to all readers, not just music project members. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  It is linked in the new lead. --GA

• "1723 , a " no space after 1723.

  fixed --GA

• "Romans 8:1–2,9–11" space after that comma.

  not sure because couldn't that mean verses 1 and 2 of chapter 8, plus chapters 9 to 11? (I found that and copied, really not sure) --GA

  Yes, that's exactly what it would mean. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  and that's wrong because it should concern verses from chapter 8, the first, second, ninth, tenth and eleventh. I guess it's the normal writing for this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, a space after the comma is normal writing for this. It's no different to a page range where you might say pp. 34–35, 38–40. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  But you misunderstood it then, no? ---GA

  No, it's just formatted incorrectly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry. You understand the 9 means the chapter, or what did I misunderstand above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, "8:1–2,9–11" should be "8:1–2, 9–11", it's not too difficult, or it could be "8:1–2, 8:9–11", but not what it currently is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I searched for "Romans:8", and in the results I see several where discontinuous verses from one chapter are shown. Some have the comma, as in our example, some have a fullstop instead, - none has the space that you want. I don't know if we have a guideline for Bible quotation. I see that verses are normally separated by comma without space (Romans 8:6-7,27 · Matthew 6:4,8,15,18), and see groups of verses separated also by fullstop (Romans 8:12-22.24-27). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Unique in its complex..." this is only unique within Bach's canon, according to later in the article, that isn't clear here in the lead.

  Then we should fix the article, because it's unique, period. --GA

  I mean this very article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I meant the same. Bach's are the pinnacle of motet writing (which would need to be mentioned and sourced), and this motet is his pinnacle within. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  This article says " is unique in Bach's work in its complex symmetrical structure" so it needs to be generalised per your comments above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's now "Bach's work", and general can come later, or not. ---GA

• "sacred cantatas" link cantatas.

  as for motet: cantata has a very broad meaning of which little applies to Bach's specific cantatas. Church cantata (Bach) was linked the previous sentence, and that article includes these wedding and funeral cantatas. We could link to its section §Occasions outside of the liturgical year if that helps. --GA

  But non-experts reading this would appreciate a link to a complex word whether it was 100% directly relevant or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sacred cantata is a redirect, and not to cantata. Wouldn't that be a dupl link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  used now redirect to the specific section ---GA

• ",[5][6][7].[8] " remove comma, place last ref before full stop.

  that seems fixed already --GA

• "scored for SSATB voices" this is overlinked.

  It's common to link in lead and body, and in this case also in the scoring section where it matters. --GA

  It's overlinked in the body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Intentionally so, yes. Please compare BWV 1 again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  it's no longer duplicate as PeneralPoxter made me remove the first occasion ---GA

• Bible verses appear to be linked in the Movements table but several appear in the preceding prose/table.

  Do we have to switch the tables? Because the links make more sense with the text beginnings, while the other is more an overview (which I inherited) --GA

  Links normally appear on the first instance. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I know, and am in a dilemma. The overview shows the basics, but we also need a relation to the text, or it remains abstract. I found no solution to have both in one format. I believe the overview is better as the first thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  solved by combinung the tables, please check ---GA

• "the cantus firmus in" what's that?

  good catch, link added

• "two soprano parts (S or SS), alto (A), tenor (T) and bass (" each of those is overlinked.

  As said just above, it's common in compositions to have the links duplicate in the scoring section where readers may arrive from the TOC. --GA

  These terms are already linked in the main body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but for composition FAs, we have it also where it's more relevant, compare BWV 1 again, or any other of several cantata FAs. - This is the first motet, but that should be consistent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  as before, no longer ---GA

• "Rom. 8:1" etc, both before and after you don't abbreviate Romans but you do here, suggest consistency.

  "you" in this case is Francis, and he has a point because if we consistently spell it out then also in the first table which would be wider. What should we do? --GA

  There doesn't appear to be an issue with width, so I don't see why the full term shouldn't be used. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  as before, no longer ---GA

• Why is the fifth (light blue) column in the Structure and scoring section smaller top and bottom than the other columns?

  I don't find what you mean, sorry. --GA

  On my screen, the fifth column isn't the same size as all the other columns. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not what I see, sorry. Others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  How would it look on a mobile? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm going by what I see on my desktop browser. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Jesus – Romans 8:1).[15] " this now links to the Bible passage, but in earlier prose sections you didn't link. I'm not clear on the strategy.

  The "strategy" - well, I thought that the translator might have used a different translation than the King James Version of the Bible but found (earlier today) that she used exactly that one. I dropped the Romans now. --GA

• "supply vivid lines" this feels like someone's opinion on the lines.

  Could you offer a synonym that sounds more neutral? "lively"? For language fine-tuning, I really need help. --GA

  Either way, it's opinion, who is saying it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think it's description. Jones (the source given) says "the soprano continues to deliver the plain chorale melody, but the lower parts are more elaborate than usual, often in the interests of text illustration." Which we could quote, or paraphrase, which I thought I did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Bible text,[63] regarded" this sentence feels like it needs "and is" before regarded to me.

  added --GA

• ". "BWV 227.1=227.11"" should that really be an equals sign?

  too bad we can't ask Francis. The music is exactly the same (while the text is not). Would you know a better option? --GA

  I am just asking why that's an equals sign, is it a range? It would be en-dash not equals if it is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  All it should say is that the first movement's music is equal to the last movement's. I'll think about it, but - after failing to bring RD article Hilmar Kopper to ITNN format, I'm too tired right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  this appears now only in a ref header ---GA

• " "Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) / Motets"" en-dsash for year ranges. At least a couple of these in the sources.

  sorry, I'm still blind for those, tried --GA

  Ok, well you can get scripts which address this issue in one click. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Please help me to it when I'm less busy ;) ---GA

That's a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your keen eyes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

TRM, prompted mostly by your concern, I rewrote the lead and united the 2 tables, please check. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• You have in the TOC "2 Structure and scoring" and then just 1, 2, 3... what does that mean to a reader? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for catching that I dropped the level-3 headers when combining the tables, and didn't notice what it means for the TOC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The SSATB question

The first sentence of the lead currently reads:

Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy), BWV 227, is an extended motet by Johann Sebastian Bach, set in eleven movements for up to five-voices (SSATB).

Per comments by Aza, I further changed it now to

Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy), BWV 227, is a motet by Johann Sebastian Bach. The longest and most musically complex of his motets, it is set in eleven movements for up to five voices (SSATB).

TRM thinks that SSATB is an abbreviation that needs to be explained in prose. I think that it is in brackets, is explained by the preceeding "five voices", and can be skipped by those who don't know it. I also think that by the same logic, we'd have to spell out Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis. What do others think about this particular question? Laser brain, GeneralPoxter, Amitchell125, Wehwalt, Mirokado? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Gerda for bringing this up. Our own MOS suggests that we shouldn't be expecting people to click away or hover over text to understand it. SSATB is jargon, pure and simple, so it needs explanation within the article itself, not just relying on the wikilink. As esteemed FA editors like Sandy or Gog would agree, we shouldn't be using "in-universe" terms without comprehensive explanation in the article itself, and starting with such jargon initialisms in the lead is a bad experience for our non-expert readers. I don't even know how "five voices" equates to SSATB for non-experts. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  My point: SATB (of which SSATB is a form) is our article title, it's not jargon but widely known as such, and linked in around 1,000 articles. I'm not willing to give the four rather common voice types weight in the first sentence, and would rather drop the specific set of five voices (in brackets) completely. I'd prefer not to do that, in the interest of the many readers of this article for whom it's a common abbreviation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  As you like. It's not "widely known" by any means outside the tiny niche of classical music. You don't want to enable our readers to understand this jargon? Ok, but I can't support that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm, I don't know about this, in the lead it says "five-voices (SSATB)" so I think it is clear enough that following five letters refer tofive respective voice parts, and it would feel like a lot of clutter to spell them out in the lead. In the article text, however, extra clarification by including the vocal parts by name (probably in parentheses) seems to not hurt, so why not? Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, and the spelling out is done in the Scoring section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I just changed the intro once more, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it is mostly OK. The most relevant detail does appear in addition ("five voices" in the lead: I removed the hyphen), "five parts" in §History, for the earlier mention. "Motet" also appears without detailed explanation in the lead.

• The detailed explanation in §Structure and scoring should mention "SSATB" explicitly, so that people searching through the article for more details can find them here.
• Since SATB has links from so many other articles, including featured articles, it would be very good if someone familiar with suitable sources could add them to that article and remove the tag. --Mirokado (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've given it a quick read tonight but I'm afraid I can't support based on prose right now. It's still full of complexity which is is inaccessible to regular readers and also not an article I'd consider to contain "professional" prose. I'll see what I can do about getting back to it soon but real life is causing me no end of issues in spending real time here. The whole SSATB thing is still littered throughout, overlinked, not explained clearly in the lead etc. Once I get free of my real-life commitments for an hour or two, I'll come back to this, but in the meantime it's still not there yet. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm delighted that you'll go over the prose, but SSATB - see separate discussion - I'll rather drop from the lead altogether than explain, as I'd not explain what a motet is in the lead, nor what a movement is. For these really rather common terms in this topic, we have links for those who don't know them, and extra explanations would make the prose clumsy for those who do know them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Evening TRM, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from Amitchell125

I found this be a well-researched and informative article, but I have concerns about the quality of the prose, the links, and other details. Some of the issues that need to be addressed are:

• The image that follows "creating a frame that encloses the whole work" seems to be far too large (it's much smaller than the infobox image).

  That is not an image but a lilypond rendition, by RandomCanadian. I don't know if the output is flexible. In the infobox (which covers only the first two measures), I can't read the text. --GA

  Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the lead section, I would: put (Jesus, my joy) in bold and in italics; link motet (List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach) and theological (also unlinked in the text); amend in E minor to 'in the key of E minor'; change a 1912 dating to a specific July 1723 funeral, as it sounds as if the text was being dated to 1912; replace to that town with 'there'; amend eleven movements to '11 movements' (it occurs elsewhere); introduce Christoph Wolff; copy-edit for education in both choral singing and theology to improve the prose; add a comma after complex symmetrical structure.

  I adjusted the lead, rewording the sentence to get to Bach sooner. I am reluctant about making "Jesus, my joy" a title, because it's just a translation of the meaning, not a title that would be used (which would be Jesus, Priceless Treasure). I believe that "theological" is a common word. I think that we say "Mass in E minor", not "Mass in the key of E minor", and believe that it is widely understood. I took "there", and tried a different wording for the funeral dating. I don't see "11 movements" elsewhere. The Bach scholar is now introduced as such. Sorry, can you reword the "education"-phrase, because it was the best I could come up with? I am not sure about the comma because the juxtapositioning makes the complexity. --GA

  • See here and here for two examples of where the title is in English, not German. See here for a FA with the style (bold, italics) that I would adopt. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    None of the two says it's performed this way. I looked around for the phrase, and found this dissertation, which might be good to use as a ref. The phrase appears only in the translation of the movements, not as a title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree, the title of the work, whilst usually in German, can also be in English, as these sources show. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Could be, but the publisher may also just make it palatable in English. I can't read the title page of the Peters which Boosey wants to sell to an English audience, but I saw Schott: while the "title" is English but no title case, the cover has it only in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I think it is up to others to decide if theological is a common word, i would link it as being relevant and helpful within the context of this article. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • For 11 movements, see the infobox (eleven occurs twice in the lead, once in the History section, once in the Structure and scoring section). Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    In the infobox, the number of movements is usually numeric, even 3 and 4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I know, and I would also have the word put numerically in the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I normally follow spelling it out up to twelve, but if it pleases you I can make an exception. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are duplicate links: SSATB; soprano; alto; tenor; bass;

  We commonly repeat them for the scoring section, for readers who jump there, where they are most relevant. --GA

  OK, but are the last four needed? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  define needed, - strictly, they were already linked before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  they should be gone, please check ---GA

• In the first part of the History section, I would: amend was regarded as antiquated to 'was already regarded as antiquated'; put in E minor like his ancestor's into a separate sentence, and improve the quality of the prose; explain figural music (or Figuralmusik) in a note, as it appears to be a uniquely German term; link continuo (Basso continuo).

  "already" added, but I'd rather drop the "in E minor" than separate it (but then explaining the connection). With the hymn in E minor, it's actually not a surprise. Figural music: Francis planned an article. Perhaps we better do without (tried, please check). "basso continuo" was linked in the previous paragraph. --GA

• In the Epistle text and chorale subsection, I would query: why italics are not used for "Jesu, meine Freude" in the caption, and why "in the flesh" and "according to the Spirit" are shown in quotes; introduce Franck as "the theologian Johann Franck" at the beginning of this subsection, not later; improve the prose where it says addressing Jesus as joy and support, against enemies and the vanity of existence, which are expressed in stark images; look again at The hymn adds a layer of individuality and emotions to Biblical teaching. - another strange sentence, as how can a hymn add a layer of emotions?

  The image is of the hymn, not the motet. "living in the flesh/spirit" is a theological phrase (or concept) by Paul, no normal language, - would you know a better way to say that? "theologian" now comes sooner. I tried to clarify the individual position of the believer saying "meine Freude" (my joy) and other very personal emotional things, - better wording wanted. The images - "old dragon" and such - come later in the movements when mentioned, - this is just a summary, as in the source. --GA

• In the 20th and 21st centuries subsection there is an unaddressed 'citation required tag'.

  Will look, but have to jump right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  ref added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

My comments were made because of my concerns about quality of the prose, amongst other things. Instead of making further comments, which I would if I had the time and energy, I instead suggest the article is checked over by an experienced copy-editor. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Amitchell125, in the meantime, Wehwalt, TRM and GeneralPoxter improved the prose. Please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Evening Amitchell125, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the reminder, I'll take another look in the next day or so. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Support. Since I last looked a great of work has been done on improving the article, and it's now imo in fine shape. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aza24

• Currently reviewing GP's article. Please ping or let me know when some of the above comments have settled down, and I'll look through. I think the coords will be more lenient now that there are more commitments to review. Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• I don't believe the meaning of "extended motet" (the first word specifically) is clear, is this is a specific genre or merely an adjective describing its size? If the latter, something more direct like "large" would probably be clearer

  It may be my language, but I never hear large for a piece of music. Yes it's meant to say that this is not the typical motet (one movement, four parts, Locus iste for example). Better wording wanted! We should probably improve both motet and Motet (Bach), eventually. --GA

  Maybe 'large-scale'? Extended sounds like it has a specific meaning, or refers to the length of the piece.

  That's an option, - I thought of something else, per your comment below, will try that and discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Perfect! Though do we need the refs in the lead? Aza24 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Presumably Franck's "Jesu, meine Freude" is the text for the odd movements? I don't think this is clear, all it says is that Franck's poem is the namesake

  not sure, - lead says "The motet contains the six hymn stanzas in its odd-numbered movements." --GA

  My mistake!

• "the longest and most musically complex of Bach's motets" — that seems like lead material as well!

  it is there, - well not the exact wording, do you mean that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  I see it now, fine how it is I believe.

• more soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  thank you for looking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Some more thoughts:
• Everything before the "18th and 19th centuries" in the "Reception, performances and publication" section seems somewhat out of place, would it perhaps better after the first paragraph of the Structure and scoring section? The "Performers of Jesu..." part could perhaps stay, thoughts?

  Not sure, but yes, somehow the general "this is the greatest" comments might be better for a conclusion. Suggestion for header then? Aza24

• Shouldn't the texts in the Movements of Bach's Jesu, meine Freude table still have quotation marks on them? Aza24 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  I doubt it. We have quotation to differentiate from ordinary text, but within a table, no misunderstanding seems possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I have (as is evident) struggled to find comments to give throughout and thus I find this article ready for promotion. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

• "This Biblical text, which influenced key Lutheran teachings, is contrasted by the hymn" How is it contrasted? I'm not clear on what this means.

  The detail comes later, but at this point, we know already that we have older text (Bible, 1st century) and newer text (hymn, 17th century), and we have teaching (third person) vs. emotional emphasis ("Jesus, my joy", first person). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• " to Bach's Leipzig years.[26]" It might help the reader if you say when this was, although you do say about when he started in Leipzig. Similarly dating might be helpful for the Weimar period and for Bach's death when mentioned.

  There's now a link to where it's covered in the bio (as Weimar already had), and the years for both. Is that too much, perhaps? - I'm reluctant about the death, because the precise year is rather less important (and same as end of Leipzig period) than saying that the two other 5-part works are one from early in Leipzig and one from late. I wonder if we should add that both are exceptional works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• " was documented for event." This could use greater clarity.

  "the" seems to have been missing, and I changed "event" to "funeral", although repetitious - perhaps better than unclear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" Should "which" be "who"? Given that we are discussing humans, or at least their souls, "who", commonly applied to human beings, seems more appropriate than "which". I also see translations of Romans 8:1 that use "who".

  That's all correct, only: Wikipedia's source is the KJV (King James Version), linked to, which has "which", and the translator referenced seems to have used the same. Should we go as far as finding and quoting a different translation, or rather leave it as historic language? The German is also sort of old-fashioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Why is Bach not linked in the lead?

  Sigh, he was until a reviewer wanted a link for "motet". As motet is very general, I thought that List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach was better, but how to indicate the difference? My solution was to include his name in that link. If you don't like it, we could copy what the infobox has, but it's a bit of an Easter egg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I've made a number of hands on edits, please feel free to revert any you do not like.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, and I'll check your changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy-edits, mostly great improvements! I'm not happy - has nothing to do with your change! - with the corner about the continuo accompaniment. Roughly: for centuries, choirs tried the "noble" unaccompanied singing because there was no continuo part; only when looking into sources more did musicologists find that two of the motets came with a continuo part, as was usual at the time. I wonder if that could be clarified, perhaps even naming those two? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm satisfied by the responses. Support.--Wehwalt (talk)

Wehwalt, kindly check the reworded lead and the table of the structure, combining the former two --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a bit long for my taste, but I'm not going to make an issue of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

I've read through this, copyediting en passant.

• Structure and scoring, the diagram
  • what does "free" mean in the chorale 3 box?
  • there is some numbering confusion here, we have unlabelled numbers 1–6 for the chorale stanzas, but in the final two boxes we have "similar to [movement numbers] 1, 2" so the "2" has different meanings within the diagram
  • apart from those occurrences, the movement numbers don't appear in the diagram, which makes flipping between introductory text, diagram and table a bit confusing. I appreciate that we don't want the diagram to get too cluttered, though.
    • I dropped the first diagram completely, adding it's info to the other table, please check ---GA
• Movements
  • wl incipit. I read this without noticing the first time, because I studied Latin a bit at school, but I have not so far come across the term in active use. Since we have a nice article about it, I think we should provide the link.
    • done ---GA
• Movements : 4
  • although the quoted "rhetorical" in §Movements : 2 is explained nicely by the subsequent text, "beatific" here is not. It is quoting the word used by Jones (2003 p. 205) but on first reading it looked like "I will let you work out what I mean here" quotes. Perhaps link to beatific, where the meanings blissful, heavenly apply.

--Mirokado (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking and the copy-edits, - I'm too tired now and hope for tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Mirokado, thank you for the suggestions, and all taken. I expanded the lead a bit, and combined the tables, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support: thank you Gerda, the updated lead and table look fine. --Mirokado (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spot checks not done. There are some source formatting issues - the web sources give nothing but the URL patterns, one URL ([2]) is dead and ISBN sometimes is linked and sometimes isn't. I was wondering if John Eliot Gardiner was a reliable source for a FA but going by the citations of his works it seems like he is. Johann Gottfried Schicht isn't so clear if he's a reliable source on this topic. Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach is it a reliable source? The article raises some doubts. Is Pamela Dellal a subject-matter expert? Some of the web sources raise questions about the credentials of their authors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping up! Perhaps compare BWV 1, source review of the FAC. Spitta was Bach's first biographer, so almost a must. (I mean: much of what he wrote has been proven wrong, but he is the source for what has been believed then. Dellal trtanslated all of Bach's vocal music into English, and is used as a source only for the translations. Schicht is also historical, - we'd have to ask Francis, - similar to Spitta, I assume. Gardiner conducted the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, and recorded the motets twice, so is my No. one expert. The other questions would need to be more precise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If much of what he wrote was proven wrong, then I'd be wary of using him as a source. My question about websites is bach-chorales.com, bach333.com, hymnary.org and ccel.org are not particularly clear on what makes them RS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Spitta: If we talk about history of reception, we have to say what a first biographer wrote even if later research proved it to be wrong. Same for the one who wrote that the piece was composed for a specific funeral (writing that in 1912), which is still proclaimed in 2021 concert programs! - bach.chorales supplies only links to three chorale settings, while we have just one in lilypond in the article, - that's good for people reading music. bach333.com is only an additional ref for other motets by Bach which were recorded, - drop it if you find a problem, hymnary.org is given only for the translation by Winckworth, - we can drop the fact (and thus the link to her translation), but it's not contentious, and may be interesting to English-speaking readers. ccel.org has only that translation in larger print, - drop if you find not useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment Support s by Gerald Waldo Luis

Interesting article, despite me not being a huge Bach fan. Will post comments soon; after they're resolved I'll support this FAC GeraldWL 09:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the few hours delay, had some IRL issues. Anyways, comments are below. First time FAC-reviewing a classical article, so forgive if I have mistaken something. GeraldWL 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I like first-time reviewers, it's eye-opening what they/you see! No delay even, - I was sleeping ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! And with all comments resolved, thy shalt support. Gute Arbeit! GeraldWL 12:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 12:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

=====Outside body===== "It is named after the Lutheran hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" with poetry by Johann Franck"-- does that mean there's a poem of the same name by Johann Freude or...? "With poetry" is quite confusing for me. ESL guy here, so please don't mind wrong grammatical concerns. most hymns have two creators, one for the poetry/text, one for the melody/music, does that help? --GA Definitely, thanks! "More recently" will be outdated as time passes. Suggest changing to "Later" English is not my first language, so I don't see the problem. It will alwayys remain more recently, no? --GA Well, depends on what you define as "more recently"; but in the year 2050 I doubt 1995 is "more recently" for most readers. I think "Later" suits more. I changed to "In the 1990s", finding "later" - in respect to 1912 - too vague. The wording was not by me, anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Fair enough :) Actually GA, is it really just 1990s? "Time of origin" section also has sources dated in the 1980s, 2000s, and 2010s, it seems. GeraldWL 11:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC) the beginning of the doubt - at least in writing - seems to come from Melamed in the 1990s, - better wording welcome. Perhaps the title of the section should be changed, because the middle para rather discusses the structure than the timing, but of course both go together somehow, - finding older pieces in the structure lets you think about when those were composed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Yeah, I can see that now. Perhaps "Since the 1990s", instead of "In the 1990s"; the latter makes it as if the dispute is exclusive to that decade. GeraldWL 12:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC) changed to that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)' Why is "five voices (SSATB)" in the lead, but "five voices SSATB" (without brackets) in the infobox? For some reason, the question for the abbreviation has caused more discussion than the music. I guess I'll remove the "five voices" from the infobox --GA In "Cited sources", it should be divided with sub-heading 2 instead of italics. After you do so, the Bach Digital link must be removed as there shouldnt be links in bolds or headings. I learned the italics for Kafka, which is a highly visible article for a model, and don't believe the headers deserve bold --GA Well if that is not prohibited then I'll give that a pass. I believe you can archive most of the sources, personally I use this tool. feel free to do so if you find it a good idea --GA :) GeraldWL 10:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC) I've archived all sources except the Gbooks links, which through experience I learn it's unarchivable; as well as the Bach Digital links, where there's no archive parameters it seems in the templates so I think it's all right too. thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC) This is the first time I've seen colons on External links, but I don't think there's guidelines against that so I'm fine with that. However: in exlink 1 and 2 "Scores" and "Free" are in title case, but not "performance" in exlink 5. Must be consistent. the colons are added by templates for these sources, - German has no title case for headers, - will add "(program book) to the mvmc --GA "mvmc.de 19 January 2019"-- I think you can convert this to a citation like you did in the last exlink, and also provide a translation to the title I can convert if it helps - this article had many authors --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Mm nah it's fine, it looks good now that I re-see it. Move "Florida State University Libraries" to the publisher parameter to unitalicize, then link Florida State University. fine, will do --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Body History "It is scored for up to five vocal parts (SSATB)" duplicate link. please see above that one thought it's such an unusual thing --GA "at the beginning of Bach's tenure in Leipzig"-- link Leipzig. They had Thomaskantor before, more relevant than today's city --GA "from two sources,"-- should use a colon instead of a comma. if you think so --GA "such as "old dragon" and "death's jaw""-- considering the text is in German, suggest providing the translations of those quotations. well, the images were named to illustrate "stark images" and the German would be within the grammar ("dem alten Drachen" instead of "alter Drachen") which made me hesitate --GA "The hymn's first line is also the last line of its final stanza"-- it would be interesting to provide the actual first line. Really? "Jesu, meine Freude" - the very title. --GA "the hymnal used in Leipzig"-- remove Leipzig link (see History point 3) yes --GA "with the word "Jesus""-- or "Jesu"? If the latter, then I think it should be changed to "Jesu". done --GA "The Cambridge musicologist" --> "The Cambridge University Press musicologist" would you name a specific publisher instead of the location? --GA "in his 1995 book about Bach's motets"-- a bit too descriptive, suggest trimming to "in his 1995 book" as that's the only relevant bit; also consistent with paragraph 3 sentence 4. if you think so (but I think it might tell readers that while others wrote a Bach Biography, or Bach's composition style, this work is specifically dedicated to only the motets) --GA "but the date has still been "nearly universally accepted"". I don't understand what this means. It's a quote, so you'd have to ask Melamed. I understand that almost wherever you look, for example in program books, you will still find written as a "fact" that Jesu, meine Freude was composed for that specific funeral. What is unclear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Structure and scoring "Bach scored it for a choir of up to five voices (SSATB): two soprano parts (S or SS), alto (A), tenor (T) and bass (B)." Another STAB duplicate link. Additionally, I think this sentence fits more in Background, paragraph 3 sentence 2. In consistency with other FAs on Bach compositions, this is where the details of the scoring are discussed, and linked, for people who may come directly from the TOC. --GA "Romans 8:9"-- link to the Wikisource. It was linked, but the links removed per the FAC as duplicate to the text section --GA "Movements of Bach's Jesu, meine Freude"-- I don't think "Bach's" is important here. agree --GA "Romans 8, setting verse 1"-- "Romans 8:1" it was changed, for the sake of those less familiar with how Bible verses are numbered, per a discussion above --GA "Christ Jesus"-- shouldn't it be Jesus Christ? Also translations should be in quotations. In other FAs, the translations are given in brackets, without additional quotation marks. It's quoted from the translation, we can't change word order, it's a typical Paul phrasing, in German and in English. --GA "sets the second verse from Romans 8" --> "sets Romans 8:2" as above --GA "quoting short motifs from the chorale"-- motif duplicate link. removed although I often think a duplicate doesn't hurt --GA "to paintings by Cranach and Grünewald" --> "to paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder and Matthias Grünewald" the source doesn't say "the Elder", - I believe the link suffices --GA "John Eliot Gardiner" --> "Music conductor John Eliot Gardiner". Additionally, I see that prior to this sentence Gardiner has been mentioned a few times; the full name and link must be in the first mention, which is in Time of Origin paragraph 2, last sentence. he's much more than a conductor, but fine, reduced to Gardiner here and explained a bit the first time --GA WP:BLOCKQUOTE says only quotes with more than 40 words must use block quotes; since the Gardiner quote only has 31 words you can just combine the quote within the paragraph. please IAR: this is perhaps the one sentence a reader should take home, and - next to the image - is still long --GA "verse 9 from Romans 8" --> "Romans 8:9" as above --GA "verse 10 from Romans 8" --> "Romans 8:10" as above --GA "For the rejection of everything earthly, Bach composed a chorale fantasia"-- chorale fantasia duplicate link. removed (but still think it wouldn't hurt) --GA "verse 11 from Romans 8" --> "Romans 8:11" as above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Reception, performances and publication The three blockquotes are also less than 40 words. One left as intended to stand out, one removed as duplicate, one no block. --GA "The motet's SATB"-- SATB or SSATB? is it unclear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Philippe Herreweghe, second set recorded in 2010" --> "Herreweghe, second set recorded in 2010" done --GA "John Eliot Gardiner" --> "Gardiner" done --GA Thank you for helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC) You're welcome, and sorry as I seem to have misunderstood some parts-- first time in a classical article. Notably that I did not read that different movements have different voices. Only issue I have left is the Cambridge part: the source's is Cambridge University Press, and "Cambridge musicologist" makes it seem like the person is born or a citizen of Cambridge; one only refers to the uni as "Cambridge" in a second mention, or beyond. GeraldWL 09:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Thank you, and I replied to some more above, and changed Cambridge to Cambridge University. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Gerda Arendt - Just making sure you've seen this latest round of comments by GWL. Hog Farm Talk 19:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Thank you. That helped. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

A coordinator opines

• On the one hand this looks almost ready for promotion. On the other, the unexplained SSATB and SATB clearly (IMO) breach several parts of the MoS. So, as it stands, I would be all but forced to archive the article as not meeting "It follows the style guidelines". Pinging @FAC coordinators: in order to allow them to differ. But Gerda, Wikipedia articles are written in order to explain things to a general reader, and even without the MoS this aspect of the article restricts ready comprehension of the article to aficionados. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think either approach is defensible. While you may well be right to consider this a breach of MOS, on the other hand, MOS being a guideline there may be a consensus not to apply it in a specific case (although I certainly don't see such a consensus in the discussion above, most editors are pushing for a greater explanation of the jargon term). While some participants in FAC have expressed that they do not believe that MOS must be followed to the exact letter, or even believe this is impossible, this belief is not reflected in the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 17:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I said I'm ready to remove SSATB from the lead and just leave "five voices". On the other hand, compare BWV 1. It pipes SATB to "four-part choir" in the lead which is possible because it has exactly those 4 voices. In this exceptional five-part work, it would be nice to tell those familiar with the abbreviation right away which of the four is doubled to make it five. Those unfamiliar with the abbreviation get "five voices" (whicih is not for aficionados only), and can click and learn. My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

From MOS:LINK, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." From MOS:ABBR, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page". Gerda, can I strongly urge you to read and reread the third sentence in my comments above. And then make any changes you feel appropriate in a timely manner. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the abbreviation from the lead. However, it didn't say "for a SSATB choir" (with the acronym coming as a surprise by itself). It said "for up to five voices (SSATB)", SSATB being only a specification of the five voices. To say instead "for up to five voices, two sopranos, alto, tenor and bass (SSATB)" would be clunky, and boring for those who know. Mind that this would come before anything explains the title even. So, I don't think what you said fits the situation, but obliged anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"SSATB" is an abbreviation. It is not an abbreviation of "for up to five voices". In fact, the way you have written it it is not possible for a reader coming across this for the first time to work out either what it is an abbreviation of nor what it means.

Am I to understand your comment above to mean that the article is, so far as this issue is concerned, it its finished state and you would like the coordinators to close it one way or the other? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have further tweaked the sentence to bind the clarification of "S", "A" etc directly to "SSATB". Of course feel free to improve further. --Mirokado (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Rambling Man mentioned going over it when he has time. As for the "abbreviation": I would't spell out British Broadcasting Corporation although I can imagine that not every reader from around the globe knows what BBC stands for. I think that once our article title is an abbreviation, we might assume that it is known under the abbreviation. That was my premise for the usage, and being told it is a MoS violation hurts, but - last time - as it isn't so for The Rambling Man and for you (while others seem to have had no problems with it): I removed it, for peace in the matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I woke up with this question: how is SSATB an alleged breach of the MoS, but BWV isn't? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.