Talk:Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Will do this ASAP JAGUAR 16:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Initial comments
edit- Can the first paragraph of the lead be expanded at all? It's rather short. If not, I would recommend moving some bits from the larger second paragraph into the first
- It's the standard first info in all Bach cantatas: what by whom for what occasion, place, time. We are in a series of about 200. I would not like to change. --GA
- It's so short because we don't know the exact date. Should that be said there? But it's explained in the next sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- It should be fine, I understand how difficult it is with finding details on a subject so old! JAGUAR 20:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- "and a bit free poetry by an anonymous author" - 'bit free'? What does this mean?
- In Bach's later cantatas, the bulk of the text was contemporary poetry, with a bit biblical and a bit chorale. Even in chorale cantatas, usually only two stanzas were kept, the rest paraphrased freely by a contemporary poet ("free poetry" by a contemporary of Bach with whom he often collaborated personally). In the early cantatas (compare BWV 4), usually there was only biblical and chorale. This is an exception, because there is minimal ("a bit") work by a contemporary, but sometimes it's just adding one word. Can you word that? --GA
- I understand now. I just thought that "a bit free poetry" sounded odd, I would potentially rephrase "a bit" to something like "slightly" JAGUAR 20:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- tried "some additions" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. JAGUAR 20:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- tried "some additions" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand now. I just thought that "a bit free poetry" sounded odd, I would potentially rephrase "a bit" to something like "slightly" JAGUAR 20:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- In Bach's later cantatas, the bulk of the text was contemporary poetry, with a bit biblical and a bit chorale. Even in chorale cantatas, usually only two stanzas were kept, the rest paraphrased freely by a contemporary poet ("free poetry" by a contemporary of Bach with whom he often collaborated personally). In the early cantatas (compare BWV 4), usually there was only biblical and chorale. This is an exception, because there is minimal ("a bit") work by a contemporary, but sometimes it's just adding one word. Can you word that? --GA
- "The cantata was published in 1876 as part of the first complete edition of Bach's works: the Bach Gesellschaft Ausgabe" - this needs a citation.
- Will copy from others. --GA
- Found this so far, - all the cantatas were published in that edition, - not so easy to find a ref for a single one. It is in the free score.
- ok, found], will add, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that the second and third paragraphs of the "Music 2" subsection could be merged, to improve prose flow
- It's a different text source, a different subsection (2c) in the structure, - trying to show the complexity at a glance. When we get to FA level, there will be more ;) --GA
- "It quotes two times what Jesus said on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke" - how about It quotes twice what Jesus said on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke?
- taken, thank you --GA
- The Evaluation section is very short for the GA criteria, if it can't be expanded at all (I realise how scarce information can be), then can it be converted into a subsection?
- At present, it's rather a summary of the music section, but belongs not only to the last movement, - how could that be done? --GA
- If it can't be expanded then I would have recommended either making it a level 3 subheader or merging it entirely into another section. But I don't see how that can happen in this article, so it should be fine as we're not aiming for FA here JAGUAR 20:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- level-3-header made, good idea! - Could be expanded, and will be, but I'd rather expand three more linked cantatas now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- If it can't be expanded then I would have recommended either making it a level 3 subheader or merging it entirely into another section. But I don't see how that can happen in this article, so it should be fine as we're not aiming for FA here JAGUAR 20:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- At present, it's rather a summary of the music section, but belongs not only to the last movement, - how could that be done? --GA
It's a nice and compact article, so I could find very little wrong with it. Overall it's very good, comprehensive for the subject and well written. The only (minor) concerns I could point out were some organisation recommendations for the lead and the shortness of the evaluation section, but once they're all clarified this should be a GA in time for Easter! 
JAGUAR 23:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for a great review for an article which will be developed more eventually, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing all of the concerns! This should be good to go now. Just in time for Easter!
JAGUAR 22:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing all of the concerns! This should be good to go now. Just in time for Easter!
- Thank you for a great review for an article which will be developed more eventually, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
