Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mass in B minor structure/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass in B minor structure

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am passionately in love with the topic (pictured on top of my talk) and would like more independent views, to make it as good as possible. This is my first PR request.

Thanks, Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]

An article like this is far outside my expertise, but here are a few passing comments:

  • You've placed most of the notation graphics following subsection headers to the left; MOS:IMAGELOCATION says this can cause problems.
  • Thank you for having taken the time, I read your comments (to this version) once, find them all helpful and will comment (sometimes not) under them without signing.
Image location: I am all for right, don't like to see it broken every day for Today's featured article, said so many times. In this case I thought that everything written follows the music, but I happily changed.
  • Shouldn't translations (such as "Agnus Dei" (Lamb of God))) have the translated parts in quotations ("Agnus Dei" ("Lamb of God"))? I don't see a guideline on this
  • Normally probably yes. - Agnus Dei is a very well known term, I would not put it in quotation marks - even hesitate for the italics -, and then the translation shouldn't have quotation marks, no? Perhaps no translation?
    • Agnus Dei in particular may not require a translation, but some of the others (e.g. "Credo in unum Deum" (I believe in one God) ) probably do. I had thought translation of terms normally appeared in quotation marks, but since I can't find a guideline saying so, I won't push it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible to use {{ill}} to create interwiki links to foreign-language wiki articles; for example, the Italian wiki has an article on Auf, süß entzückende Gewalt, BWV Anh196. You can create a temporary link thus: {{ill|it|Auf, süß entzückende Gewalt, BWV Anh196|Auf, süß entzückende Gewalt}}, which appears as Auf, süß entzückende Gewalt, BWV Anh196 [it]. The magic part of this is that if anyone creates the English article, the template will automatically stop displaying the interwiki link, as if it were never there.
  • Thanks for the hint at the Italian! I used {{ill}} in other cases.
  • Is there a reason Bach's name is in bold in the infobox?
  • When I have time, I will pursue that topic further, at the template talk. As in opera, I had "by Johann Sebastian Bach" above the image, until it was reverted.
  • I'm not sure the parts of the work should be bolded, according to MOS:BOLD. They're not terms being defined.
  • I reduced the bolding to redirects.
  • I think the infobox image lacks impact ...
  • I see what you mean, but will wait what others may say. I like the title page at the beginning and the autograph where the text relates to it.
  • I now rearranged the pics, also plan to write more about the Et incarnatus, which will reduce the white space further.
  • Are you aware of {{music}} for producing time signatures? Not that I'm saying you should use it, just that you may like to.
  • I am aware, and find commontime too big for tables, see?
  • "Gregorian chant" and "Sanctus" are each linked twice in the lead. There appears to be a lot of duplinking throughout the article. Are you aware of User:Ucucha/duplinks?
  • The lead probably needs an extra look at the end of the procedure, it was the last thing written. I changed the two you mentioned. - Several movements have redirects pointing to them. A reader coming in there should not have to go back to the beginning.
  • "he composed it as a complex symmetric structure": should that be "as a" or "in a"?
  • " The Mass "represents Bach's last major artistic undertaking" ": according to whom? Is there a reason why this is quoted and not paraphrased?
  • It's sourced where it appears. I don't dare to paraphrase such a sentence ;)
  • "For several movements their base is known, for some others it is lost but the score shows that they are copied and reworked." I'd reword this aomething like "The bases for several movements are known, for others they are lost but the score shows that they are copied and reworked."
  • done
  • "affekt" is linked, but could it not be given a short explanation?
  • I hesitate, because it's in the middle of an already long structure. Here and in general: this is a specialised article, most readers will be familiar with terms related to Baroque music and Mass composition.
  • "the Sanctus is scored for six voices, SSAATB, and the Osanna": I assume SSAATB is the six voices, rather than in addtion? Maybe put the formula in parentheses to make it clear?
  • done
  • done
  • RexxS used to do that for me. I will see what I can learn.

My break's over. I'll take another look later. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

  • Did you know that I am delighted about your diligent looking and commenting (at this version). It is also helpful to know if the article makes sense to a reader without special background.
  • "where sacred music "borrowed" from Italian opera": is there a reason "borrowed" should be in quotes?
  • If you think it is good enough without just remove them away.
  • "More likely, Bach sought to create": I assume Rifkin went through a number of other possibilities before this quotation, but in the context of this article "More likely" is out of place. Maybe replace with "... likely"?
  • I removed "More", but think it would make sense, - "more likely" than the composition for a specific occasion, in that sense, in place, no?
  • ""kind of specimen book of his finest compositions in every kind of style, from the stile antico of Palestrina in the "Credo" and "Confiteor" and the expressively free writing of the "Crucifixus" and "Agnus Dei", to the supreme counterpoint of the opening Kyrie as well as so many other choruses, right up to the most modern style in galant solos like "Christe eleison" and "Domine Deus""": these double quotes withing double quotes should be converted to single quotes, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations within quotations
  • done
  • "For several movements, scholars assume": scholars assume what?
  • I reworded it completely.
  • "The Gloria is structured in symmetry as a sequence of choral movements and solo movements, arias and a cental duet": is that "central duet", or a technical term I'm not familiar with?
  • typo ;) - please correct the next such find right away, with a "?" in the edit notice.
  • ". The first is opened by a chorus followed by an aria, closed in the last section in symmetry by an aria followed by a chorus, the middle section alternates choral music with solo." I'd have "the middle section" as a separate sentence.
  • tried a ";" - it's the structure of the whole movement, should be one idea. Question is how much of this should be present at this point, how much where the part Gloria begins. Some repetition will be needed for people coming in to these redirects.
  • "The continuation of the thought, "Et in terra pax"": why the bolding?
  • because it has it's own No. in some editions, - I made it an extra header, hesitantly, because the transition from one to the other is truly one of the miracles of the work, only understood if you come from the Gloria
  • "The length of an eight-note ... of "heavenly" three eights": should these be "eighths"?
  • yes
  • "the idea of thanks to God and praise of his creation": I think we capitalize "His" (though I'm not religious myself)
  • This depends on who "we" is. If I quote from the King James version of the Bible, I capitalize, but I don't in normal text or the translation of something that doesn't (here German and Latin). Interested what others think.
  • "is a melody in even tempo that raises gradually": I think that's "rises"
  • yes
  • ""propter magnam gloriam tuam" (for your great glory) ... und verkündigen deine Wunder" (and proclaim your wonders)": I think "Your" might be capitalized as well
  • as above

I'm going to take a break here and come back again. My technical understanding really doesn't go beyond guitar-magazine analyses of prog rock, so I'll have to skip over that stuff. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

[edit]

A couple of general observations:

  • Wikipedia articles should primarily be written for a general readership, rather than for those with existing expertise in a subject. With this thought in mind, I have reservations about the anonymity of the title. Of course, those versed in music will be aware that the B minor Mass is J.S. Bach's, none other, but many others will not know this and may be misled as to the article's intended focus.
  • Thank you for looking! I am not sure if I understand the question(s). The article for the general readership is Mass in B minor, without a qualifier, - and I am happy every time I link that it is short and does not need a pipe. The title of this should follow, no? --GA
  • My point is that if the article's title was, say, Structure of Bach's B minor Mass, then all readers would know immediately what the article was about. Your present title may not mean much to readers other than music lovers, and even they may be a little confused by the title. as I admit I was for a moment. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My idea was that the search function should present it when you look for the piece. At the moment it is consistent with The Creation structure, but it could be with Structure of Handel's Messiah, if we don't mind the extra characters each time it is linked to. This article name plus movement name is the link to a given movement, as editions don't agree on movement numbers, and a movement number 3 would not even tell you in which section of NBA I you are. I tried to keep the article name short. Redirects are fine ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a quick glance, there are presentational issues, first with the seven-paragraph lead (which includes a bullet-point list). The lead should comply with the requirements of WP:LEAD. Then, the later text appears to be heavily over-provided with illustrations from the published music, but this has created a multitude of white spaces which give the text a very fragmented appearance and does not help readability. Are all the illustrations really necessary?
  • Lead: it will be the last thing to be developed. Normally I would not present a bullet-point list there, but in this unique case it seems to me a way to present (in bold) Bach's original titles of his four books and their (unusual) relation to the normal five titles of the mass.
  • When you do modify the lead, you should incorporate into the first paragraph a summary of why the structure of this work is of particular importance or interest, e.g. the extent to which it is unique in church music, or how influenced the character of later formal religious works. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The incipits are taken from the list in the German Wikipedia where they are within the table of movements. It was the same here in earlier versions, but I felt that in that position they blow up the space of the table and (more important) are not near to whatever is said about the music. They are no illustration but more a visible source, which will tell anyone who can read music or even knows this music what the text is about, text which can only very humbly approach "the master". --GA
  • The great majority of your potential readers will not be able to read music, and the presence in the article of 30-odd incipits etc. will not help them to understand the article. My recommendation would be to reduce these examples to an absolute minimum, perhaps four or five cases where a simple, significant point can be clearly illustrated. You have set yourself an extremely difficult task in attempting to produce an article of a technical nature that is at the same time accessible to the general reader; I am not entirely sure how possible this will be, but selectivity of examples an illustrations will be an important factor. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's wrong to address those who can read music also, and provide Bach's music visibly. There are free scores, but it always takes an extra click to get to them, and you don't see music and something written about it at the same time. Much more could be said about each single movement, and none of them is unimportant ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • Sorry I've left this for a while. I've done some stuff with the tables for accessiblity, including breaking the table into four, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. I guess this messes with sorting, though. Another option is to include the part names in another column of the table (using "rowspan"), but that would make the table even wider than it already is. Which would you prefer?
  • There are some places on the table where I'm stuck:
    • "The movement numbers follow the Bärenreiter editions of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, first in a consecutive numbering (NBA II), then in numbering for the four individual parts (NBA I)": So, NBA II is the numbering for the Mass as a whole (from 1 to 23), and NBA I is numbering for the individual parts (Missa 1–12, Symbolum Nicenum 1–9)? If so, then aren't the "No" and "No2" headers in the table (now tables) backwards?
      • They are backwards insofar as I prefer the numbering from 1 to 23 as more unique, and as their later version. The other, former approach is listed second, although/because in history it was first. The table as it is now is better suited to that one.
    • Either way, it's not obvious at first glance what "No" and "No2" refer to. Would it be appropriate to relable them "NBA I" and "NBA II"?
      • You could say "NBA II" and "NBA I", it would make the table again a bit larger.
      • done
    • What's going on with "Et expecto"? I clicked through, but couldn't find an explanation. Is it a typo? If not, can they not somehow be merged into one row?
      • I don't know what you mean? The words are composed twice, different scoring, different parody situation.
    • Why are "Kyrie", "Gloria", and "Credo" in bold?
      • They are headings in the "normal" Latin mass, not a single movement only but the beginning of a part.
    • There is the comment "likely" under the "Source" header for many of the movements. Likely what?
      • Short for "It is likely that this movement is a parody, but we have no knowledge about parody of what."
    • Are there no "No2"s for Sanctus?
      • No, because that edition considered it one movement, in spite of a different time.
  • ———Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for more help, and take all the time you need. It took about a century from composition to first performance ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please think about the table once more. I would really like if for example "strings" was one column where you could easily compare where he uses a viola, where not, and if readers could see following the two adjacent columns if a movement is solo or choir, important for the structure, - both without having to find "where's this column" from one of Bach's four parts (which don't correspond to the normal five parts of a mass) to the next. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

[edit]

Thank you, Curly Turkey, for improving the structure table! I tried to take Brian's comment, eliminated the complex bullet list from the lead and tried a table, - only: I don't know which mistake makes everything appear bold (and have no time now ...). The line below Sanctus should not be there, if that can be done, - I would not know how. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. The problem was starting the lines with a "!"–it makes the whole line a header, I guess. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably ;) thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mass_in_B_minor_structure/archive1&oldid=749824870"