Talk:Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein, BWV 2/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 07:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I will be done by tonight. Thanks, — Yash ^talk stalk 07:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Bach Cantatas Website a RS? – I'll add a {{refimprove}} tag to the recordings section for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken thinks that Bach Cantatas Website uses liner notes without consent from the publishers. I don't think they do it without consent from the publishers, nor had previous FA reviewers any such concerns. It's on WP:RSN, where Wehwalt asked Francis to say why he thinks so, but no answer, to my knowledge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This was my extensive reply to Wehwalt's remark (which was a repeat of a remark made earlier on the page, so the reply was formulated in response to the first occurrence of the remark). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the above reply by Gerda also doesn't pass Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification: "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" (emphasis added); and/or doesn't pass WP:FORUMSHOP: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages ... Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible": mentioning that "previous FA reviewers" had no concerns in this respect, without mentioning that that argument has been rejected multiple times, as well in open and as in closed discussions about the same fails to present the issue in a neutral manner. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Idiosyncrasies

See detailed discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1#Francis Schonken. – many of the idiosyncrasies are present in the current GA candidate, will proceed with a detailed discussion if needed. See also #Coordinator suggestion on the same page, containing (suggestion to Gerda Arendt): "I'd advise that in future you get together with Mr Francis Schonken and iron out your differences before nominating any further Bach chorale articles. Otherwise this debacle will repeat itself...": Gerda is of course free to follow that advise or not, to ignore any risk at debacle, and/or to interpret it as only applying to FA nominations and/or not applying to cantata articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean regarding this article, Francis. - No coordinator said the above about differences, but Brianboulton who was one of the reviewers who had no problems with Bach Cantatas, - no ping because below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

& canvassing – just saw this which imho fails Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification ("Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions"): instead of following the suggestion of the FA coordinator "...get together with Mr Francis Schonken..." Gerda solicits possibly more sympathetic candidate GA reviewers. @Yash!: please bear this in mind if and when proceeding with a review. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Asking reviewers to do a FA or GA review is not considered canvassing. I asked not only Yash! but also Cassianto, The Rambling Man and Yunshui this time, and many others (Drmies, Dr. Blofeld, Jaguar, Montanabw, among others) in previous cases. I trust that all these reviewers are not partial but interested in quality articles. (I would normally ping them, but don't want to hear canvassing again.) None of these reviewers had any concerns regarding the Bach Cantatas Website, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Media

(Compare Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1#Media review) : suggesting to include a few score extracts, that is: examples from the cantata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not part of GA criteria. Return that when someone goes for FA. Someone will not be me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not part of GA criteria. King James Version is firstly closer to Bach's and Luther's wording that Bach knew, secondly I assume that it is the most familar English version among our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Bible translation links

(Compare some of the comments I added in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1#Comments by Wehwalt section) : "I'd prefer a 21st-century translation. Also, a translation that is not tied to a denomination". Can {{Sourcetext|source=Bible|version=King James|... instances be replaced by, for instance, {{Sourcetext|source=Bible|version=World English|... ? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not part of GA criteria. King James Version is firstly closer to Bach's and Luther's wording that Bach knew, secondly I assume that it is the most familar English version among our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links

The External links section may need some attention (e.g. currently including a WP:ELNEVER link, which I'll tag, also: do we need so many links to hobby sites?); suggesting to take to WP:ELN to get more input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Will take a look. If someone's hobby (Mincham, Grob and others) enhances the appreciation of a reader for Bach's work, I tend to show it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Breadth of coverage

(WP:GACR #3.a) I'd suggest to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Articles about compositions which contains some WikiProject level guidance on how to approach this, e.g. in the subsection about reception topics "...How and when was [the composition] published?...": Reception topics currently in the BWV 2 article make a jump of about two-and-a-half centuries (first performance in the first half of the 18th century → recordings in the second half of the 20th century), as if the composition only lay around in archives in the intermediate period. A quite standard way to bridge that gap is to write something about the first publication of the piece (second half of 19th century for almost all Bach cantatas). For this cantata specifically: it was included in the very first volume published by the Bach Gesellschaft, which may be worth mentioning. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Francis, thank you for your iniative, but please respect that a GA review is done by one reviewer. I suggest to place your concerns on the talk page. I have no time right now, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The box on top of the article talk page contains "Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer." (emphasis added). My comments above conform completely to the instructions regarding GA candidate articles.

Re. "I have no time right now, sorry" – suggesting to put this GA candidate assessment on hold until Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER is formally closed or archived, and until nom has more time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"no time right now", when I wrote it, meant that I had to leave the house that moment, actually was late leaving, so had no time to explain that. How about assuming faith? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Francis Schonken. I won't call it canvasing when one asks another user for a GAR. I just follow the criteria and I don't have any sympathetic opinion about these topics (if anything, I refrain from reviewing topics that I have a sympathetic point of view about). But I understand your point. Until the issue of references is resolved, I will put this on hold. As for the other issues you've raised, I will have to check on that — the criteria for GAs are relaxed comparative to FAs. I appreciate your comments and involvement. Best, — Yash ^talk stalk 09:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Yash! Can we do the following: I was in a bit of a rush with the nomination because I hoped to see this on the Main page on Sunday, the day for which it was created. I gave up that idea, so we can take more time. I will hopefully address the tags mentioned above, not right now but within the next days. I have several things (WP and RL) that need to be done first, and will travel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Gerda Arendt. Let me know if you want to take your time and work on it. I can go on and close this review for now. You can always nominate it later on. Cheers, — Yash ^talk stalk 18:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the seven days should be enough, - you could still close it later if not. I will be off for the next two days, but then can look again. I listened to a great concert, so saw your ping before checking what else developed. Wehwalt had a good comment in the RS question, - did you follow? - I noticed that Telemann has an anniversary tomorrow, so wrote 2 articles, - thinking that was more important than GA or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that. With my time being limited, I cannot properly justify my participation in the discussion. That should be the priority then. I am very patient so take your time, and let me know whenever you're ready. Good luck! — Yash ^talk stalk 09:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: please refrain from qualifying comments given by others in another still open discussion as good or bad or whatever. The open discussion is at WP:RSN, and that's where I replied to Wehwalt's latest comment: whether you appreciate my response there (or not) is imho not a topic for this GA nomination page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Back after break

Thank you for patience. The RS is open.

Unreliable source?

Recordings, a bit of article history

• 2007-07-14 creation by Microtonal
• 2009-01-07 recordings by Campelli, no source but clearly from the Bach Cantatas Website, even copying the formatting
• 2010-05-30 formatting (less bold, no repetition of voice types) by me
• 2015-06-15 table, attribution by me
• 2015-09-18 inline citation by me

To say now, after 8 years, that these recordings don't come from the Bach Cantatas Website seems simply not true.

Idiosyncrasies

I don't see specific concerns regarding this article.

External links

Several sites have been moved from references to external links. They are informative.

Breadth of coverage

A section about publication can be added. I usually do that on FA level (Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125), not GA (Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56) but why not sooner.

These were the unanswered concerns from above, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I replied to the "... after [x] years ..." argument in the active RSN discussion ([1]).

I hope we can all agree that this GA deliberation should not be finally closed before the RSN discussion about the Oron source is closed or archived, and enough time has been allotted to implement its consequences (i.e., if any for the BWV 2 article)

I didn't detail yet how I see the "idiosyncrasies" material applying to this GA candidate (see above "... idiosyncrasies are present in the current GA candidate, will proceed with a detailed discussion if needed"), but I do protest against the attempt to brush this over by "I don't see specific concerns regarding this article"-like declarations. Either ask for the detailed analysis (which might take some time to put together), or for the time being I don't bother you too much with improvement suggestions (the idiosyncrasies might solve while you improve the article) and then I'll return with an analysis later (if any would still be needed by then). Just don't pretend the unresolved issues aren't there currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that have to "brush" over some of your remarks, because I don't have the time to read them all. I suggest that we take our time: Bach wrote the cantata for last Sunday, - too late for 2017 anyway. - I ask Yash for points to improve the article, as he regularly gives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Re. "...I don't have the time to read them all" – there's a certain WP:IDHT ring in that response (you replied to most of my earlier suggestions in this regard, often with lengthy argumentation, so I suppose you at least read my suggestions then). There's a difference between not wanting to take the time now to revisit these, and not seeing them, as you wrote earlier on this page. For the time being I'm happy with you not pretending these suggestions don't exist. It might take some time to sort the earlier suggestions out in view of what might apply at GA candidature level: as said I'll help with that if asked. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I do what I can, trying to understand, but for example the lengthy thread "Liner notes" in the RS thread is too much for my limited understanding. I was also trained to offer two comments to a discussion, no more, and feel it's a good concept (so I try not to revisit there). - My mind is elsewhere, in RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Re. "I was also trained to offer two comments to a discussion, no more, and feel it's a good concept (so I try not to revisit there)" (emphasis added) – ambiguous: either you stop commenting (which means accepting whatever way the consensus develops), or you keep participating in the discussion until the thing is decided. Either way, keeping an eye on a developing discussion is recommended, if you have an interest in it. Anyway, rebooting a discussion on the same somewhere else is generally not recommended per WP:FORUMSHOP. You asked a question at the RSN: it looks like that question is more or less answered by now, so live with the consequences or participate in the still open discussion there to influence its outcome.

Re. "lengthy thread "Liner notes" in the RS thread is too much for my limited understanding" – let me summarize: <snip> (moved my proposed summary to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Redux, which is the proper place to discuss this --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

Re. health issues: take your time, nothing urgent here. Your "I think the seven days should be enough" above, with only two more days remaining of that week, seems a rather shortish time period to get it all sorted for the BWV 2 article though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I was not clear: I am still interested in what Yash! has to say about possible improvements to this article. Then he can close it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Since Yash has disappeared, I'll do a quick look to see if there's further issues before closing this. Wizardman 15:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything checks out to me, so I'll pass this. sorry for the delay, forgot I said I'd take a look. Wizardman 16:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)