Talk:Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 23:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The "Selected recordings" section is a bit difficult to read through, and appears at first more like a set of references. Perhaps converting it into prose to simply provide a rundown of selected orchestras who have released recordings of the cantata would work better. I'm also concerned about the length of the quote used under the "Music" heading and the possibility of it being seen as beyond the scope of fair use. It would be better to paraphrase its intent in a prose passage and use directly quoted material more sparingly.

1) Selected recordings: I found the format in existing articles about Bach cantatas (you see in the box that there are about 200) and don't think this one should be treated differently. Details on series of recordings are found in the general article Bach cantata, but should not go into every single one. The section serves mainly as a reference to artists, - and I am happily watching red links disappearing there.

That's fair enough, internal consistency is a good thing to stick to. GRAPPLE X 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

2) I feel that the quote IS already paraphrased in the article, but feel also that Gardiner's wording adds life to encyclopedic dryness.

It's mainly that we have a 250+ word block of quoted text, and this has been seen as an issue in other articles. I've made an attempt to show what I had intended, and have kept a large amount of the material present, but the presentation is not in a block quote but interspersed slightly more to serve more as commentary than as the presentation of a quoted passage. Let me know how you think it works. GRAPPLE X 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful wording, thank you! I moved it to the "Words" section and removed the bit about two parts being unusual, - 14 movements are rare (met only those 2 cantatas so far), two parts are not as rare, that the two parts are symmetrical is rare again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If the two parts are common in Bach then yeah, keep it out, but if they're common in cantatas in general but not really common in Bach's work specifically then keep it in. GRAPPLE X 13:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   I think the lead needs some expansion, two paragraphs feels about right for the scope of the article.

Expanded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, looks great. GRAPPLE X 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. 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:

   Images are grand. Maybe worth moving the second one down to the next header to space them out a little but they're fine otherwise.

Would like to see the invitation to the banquet where it is mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article's in solid enough shape, just a bit of work to be done here. Going to keep it on hold to allow time for fixes. GRAPPLE X 23:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   Well, I'm satisfied with this one then. Now to figure out where it goes under WP:GA. GRAPPLE X 13:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the first GA for GA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

When I looked through WP:GA/MU to list it, I think it's the first GA classical composition too. GRAPPLE X 13:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that's because the WikiProject Classical music doesn't assess articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I get that there's no internal assessment within the project, but WP:GA is a good avenue for additional outsider assessment. I'd be happy enough to look a few others over if you'd like. GRAPPLE X 18:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

CatScan tells me that there are 26 "Good Articles" among the WikiProject Classical music articles:

1. Karlheinz Stockhausen
2. Chetham's School of Music
3. Trobairitz
4. Tone cluster
5. Trevor Pinnock
6. Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen)
7. Malcolm Sargent
8. Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn)
9. Boosey & Hawkes
10. The Dying Swan
11. Six moments musicaux (Rachmaninoff)
12. Guto Puw
13. Queen's Hall
14. Grant Park Music Festival
15. Miscellaneous solo piano compositions (Rachmaninoff)
16. Schubert's last sonatas
17. Magnetic Rag
18. Clara Clemens
19. Bethena
20. Wonderland (Faryl Smith album)
21. Twice Through the Heart
22. Beautiful Heartache
23. Threni (Stravinsky)
24. Mei-Ann Chen
25. Huw Edwards (conductor)
26. David Hattner

Quite a few of these are compositions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Perhaps worth a separate listing within the Music GAs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)