Talk:Gott ist mein König, BWV 71/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Yash! in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I will give my comments by tomorrow. Best, Yash! 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Lead
edit- "He composed it in Mühlhausen for the inauguration of a new town council on 4 February 1708." - mentioning the date here goes off topic. Additionally, the same is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead. I would suggest rather to include when it was composed which according to the prose is between 1707-08.
- Why go unprecise when we - for a change! compare all the other early cantatas - know exactly. It's a standardfor the Bach cantatas to mention the date as precisely as we know in the first paragraph. --GA
- "...and free poetry by an unknown poet of Bach's time connects to the political occasion" -> "...and free poetry by an unknown poet of Bach's time which relates to the political occasion"
- good, thank you --GA
- The quote sounds odd in the current sentence. Also, much better if it is written out in your own words.
- you are right, but if I'd say "four separate instrumental choirs" it would by close paraphrasing, no? --GA
- "only this one time" -> "only for this particular event"
- "Stylistically it shares features with Bach's other early cantatas." - in "Music" and "Importance" it is mentioned that it is different from early works. Perhaps this lead sentence needs to be revisited.
- It shares much more than what differs, --GA
- Include a summary of "Importance" in the lead. Isn't the "printing" importance enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
History and words
edit- Ref for the first paragraph?
- doubled (sorry,missed that when splitting the paragraph) --GA
- "the organist of one of" -> "the organist at one of" - 'of' repetition makes it sound off. ;)
- yes ;)
- "BWV 131" -> "Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131" - since that is how BWV 150 is written and is better to write the full name.
- yes --GA
- "speculated" by?
- "thought" by?
- both questions: I didn't write that, Thoughtfortheday did (who just made the cantata mentioned above a GA yesterday). We could say that Alfred Dürr reports that it has been speculated, but Werner Neumann thought that ..., - but after the result (one sentence later) is open: is it necessary to make it more complicated? --GA
- "in other words" - best to not mention that.
- tried --GA
- "but it is lost" -> "which was lost".
- somehow seems not strong enough for the disappointing fact that half of Bach's cantatas printed during his lifetime was lost --GA
Theme
edit- Ref for the first paragraph and the text in bullets?
- First paragraph: let's ask Thoughtfortheday. The bulleted text is the biblical text is the cantata text, - no source needed, I'd think. --GA
- "and thus" -> "thus".
- yes ::GA
- The translated text is in two different paragraphs which looks odd. Perhaps have the first translation after a "-". For example: "Verse 12: "Gott ist mein König von Alters her, der alle Hülffe thut, so auf Erden geschicht." - God is my Sovereign since ancient days, who all salvation brings which on earth may be found (ASV: Yet God is my King of old, Working salvation in the midst of the earth).
- I tried it differently, please look, --GA
- "have been seen" by whom? Perhaps could be rephrased.
- I removed the sentence entirely, and boldly moved the two refs to where they were missing at the beginning of the paragraph. --GA
- "suggested" by?
- "The importance of "borders" may be an allusion to Charles XII's invasion of Saxony in 1706, and who, in 1708, represented a threat to Mühlhausen." - ref?
- probably another one for Thoughtfortheday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The full stop should not be inside the quotation if I am not mistaken.
- moved --GA
Structure and scoring
edit- Why is it disputed? Do explain in the article.
- We don't do that even in Featured articles. We just have to mention that it is not sure that we see Bach. --GA
- Can we have the duration?
- will search, - Dürr book is offline for those pages,- could look at recordings --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Music
edit- "A model for such "theatrical splendour" we oratorios" - not sure why there is a "we" in this sentence.
- fixed typo --GA
- "the psalm" -> "Psalm 74" - or am I missing something?
- no,-do you think it needs to be repeated? --GA
- "Another psalm verse" - shouldn't "p" be in capitals?
- no, Psalm 74, but the psalms, a psalm verse, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Importance
edit- Ref for the first paragraph?
- made it one,and dropped some repetition, - it's more a summary than something new --GA
- Link Leipzig.
- not again ;) (hesitate to link to present-day Leipzig in Bach articles anyway)
- "fifteen" -> "15"
- no longer there
- "for not more than one repeat performance" -> "solely for one performance" or "for only one performance" or anything else that you'd like.
- not sure, - I read that one repeat was planned, which would make it two, - not sure because again, I didn't write it,and perhaps you understand better what was meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
References
edit- Ref #2 - needs proper formatting.
- [http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Rec-BIG/Gardiner-P03c[sdg141_gb].pdf] Can you fix those []? I forgot which code helps it. --GA
- Ref #5 - same as above.
- What do you mean? --GA
- Ref #14 - same.
- What do you mean? --GA
- Also, the above mentioned three are dead.
- #2 looks dead because of the problem in the url, #5 is offline, #14 works for me? --GA
That would be all. Gerda Arendt, Happy Holi BTW! :) Yash! 18:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Easter was so great that I missed this on my watchlist, sorry ;) - 28k+ views for a Bach cantata in one month is new! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have got involved with a few points. As to the question of how many performances there were, I'd say probably 2, but as we are not sure perhaps we could skirt around this issue. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to apologize for not getting around soon enough. I am happy with the article - it is a good read. Thank you for all your efforts. Best, Yash! 18:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)