Talk:Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• Rep of ambitious
• "expands the contrast " -doesn't seem right here, try "illustrates" or "exaggerates" or something

The contrast is given by the biblical quote, he expands the thoughts, - better wording welcome. --GA

Tim riley Any thoughts? Perhaps you can also provide some pointers here..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think if you make it "expands on" rather than just "expands" it will read very well. Tim riley talk 17:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, tried ---GA

History

• Delink Thomaskantor and link in first instance in Background. Also why is one in Italics and not the other?

Linked in lede and on first occurrence in body now, all italic, --GA

• Again "expands the contrast" and rep of "The poet expands"

s.a. --GA

• "non-Leipzig paper" -what is that? Is Leipzig paper special or something?

Musicologists know the (different) kind of paper used in Leipzig vs. what Bach used in Köthen, - better wording welcome. --GA

Scoring

• Just a list, not your usual summary? Couldn't you find anything in detail on each part?

Will be a table - after Nielsen ;) --GA

Music

• Watch ] here : chorale cantata]s

thank you, fixed --GA

A source for selecting recordings would be useful at the top.

Do you mean for criteria of selection? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean add the citation link after "A list of recordings is provided by Aryeh Oron on the Bach-Cantatas website."

Made the source an inline citation, ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I was waiting to see if Tim riley had some further points beyond my own but this looks passable now, good work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)