Talk:Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) 06:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Will be starting a review shortly. Two preliminary points:

• Afaics I made a total of three edits to the article in five years, none of which seem significant (modified a category; added a navbox; modified a link) – so I assume there's no problem w.r.t. "made significant contributions to the article prior to the review", unless someone thinks otherwise (please state now, before I start the review in a day or so).
• The GA nomination was initiated 20:04, 21 March 2020 ([1]) – since that time there have been over 50 edits to the article, some of these fairly significant. So, @Gerda Arendt: are you happy with the article as it is now, or do you want more time to continue updating it before the review starts? And if so, how much more time do you want?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• You are independent, made no major changes to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• I nominated on 21 March, Bach's birthday. I never believe that an article is finished. I hope that in understanding that the result of a GA should be a better article after the process. I would appreciate if we could achieve that goal in dialogue, as it is usually done in GA reviews, compare the last by Reaper Eternal. Jessye Norman, - detailed, diligent, open, requesting more eyes. State of the article: I know that the recordings section is minimal at present, but could mostly refer to a section on the Bach Motets article, because they are usually recorded together, and that more is needed for the publication. For FA (eventually), there should be more background about Bach, the texts and the tune, and more images, but please don't forget that this is just GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A simple "yes" or "no" suffices. The question is about stability during the time I write my initial review: that may take a few hours, a dozen or so changes during such period (including possibly some substantial changes) make my work as reviewer more difficult. In that case I'd prefer to give you more time to continue your improvements (which I'd encourage on principle), and start the review after the dust has settled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I will make a few changes to the two sections recordings and publications, as mentioned above. The lead will grow last, as always for me. I will ping you when done, hopefully later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Francis, I did what I wanted for now, article now like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   1. (in lead section, 2nd §) "Extant copied parts date from before 1735" (and similar, in "History", end of 5th §) "Copies of parts survive from before 1735" – unclear what is meant by "parts": both the German "Stimmen" and "Teile", with different meaning, can be translated as "parts" but it is unclear which of these meanings is intended.
   2. (in "History", 2nd §) "... BWV 225.^[11], writing ..." – something wrong with the punctuation.
   3. (in "5") "The voice depict ..." – "s" missing after either "voice" or "depict".
   4. (in "History", 2nd §) "[according to] Melamed ... the older version of the chorale melody used as the cantus firmus in the ninth movement, ... suggests an origin in Weimar or even earlier. ...; Christoph Wolff noted that the motet might be intended for education of the Thomanerchor [i.e. in Leipzig]; ... Richard D. P. Jones ... assumed ... the late 1720s [i.e. also Leipzig]" (and the continuation of variant views about Melamed's "pre-Leipzig" theory only several sections further, in "9") "Jones, however, found .... matching compositions from the mid-1720s in Leipzig" – this is a quite fractured treatment of a topic that maybe is best treated wholly in the "History" section.
   5. (opening phrase of "History" section) "While Bach composed church cantatas regularly for the normal services in the Lutheran Church, his motet compositions were written irregularly" – the phrasing doesn't fit very well, e.g. the implication that Bach wrote whatever "irregularly", the fact that not all of his church cantatas were tied to occasions of the liturgical calendar, etc. I'm looking for a better phrasing to convey the content. Maybe something like "Bach composed most of his church cantatas for occasions of the Lutheran liturgical calendar of the time and place where he was occupied. Church cantatas for weddings and funerals fall outside such scheme, and also his motets appear to belong in this latter category." (note: "appear" because it also can't be proven with absolute certainty that none of them was written for an occasion of the liturgical year) Also the next sentence, introducing "... a Bach motet canon", may benefit from rephrasing to make it more accessible for lay readers, but I have no alternate wording proposal.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   1. (Lead sentence) "Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy),^[1] BWV 227, is ..." – too cluttered (WP:Leadsentence): the reference can be missed (the "Jesu, meine Freude" article's lead sentence doesn't need it, using exactly the same standard literal translation so it doesn't need to be attributed to a particular author); Link catalogue abbreviation on first occurrence (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure): "... BWV 227, ..." → "... BWV 227, ..." (including a system that prevents a line break between catalogue abbreviation and number)
   2. (in "History", 1st–2nd §) "... note ... that ...; ... points out that ... "; (in "History", 2nd §, in "1", in "2", in "5") "... noted that ..."; (in "History", 2nd §, and in "9") "... pointed out that ..." – "pointing out", "noting" or similar expressions should not be used per WP:SAID, part of the words to watch guidance (click the WP:SAID link and see in the guidance which variants of "said" are acceptable)
   3. "Text" section title, and in that section "The chorale melody ..." and "Bach's ... setting ..." – the section title doesn't match its content. I'd move the description of the basis of the composition, that is chorale (text + tune) and the Romans 8 excerpt, to the start of the History section (the hymn tune is anyhow best explained before the discussion of the chronology based on hymn tune versions), and the description of what Bach did with that basis to the "Music" section. Also in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure can be followed without an extra "Text" section, certainly when that "Text" section title doesn't very well cover the content of that section.
   4. (entire last § of "History" section) "After Bach's death, the motets, unlike much of his other music, were kept continuously in the repertoire of the Thomanerchor." – this rather seems a reception topic: I'd move it to a "Reception" section, to be initiated after the descriptions of the individual movements, with the current "Manuscripts and publication" and "Recordings" section made level-3 subsections of that "Reception" section – all of this standard layout per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure.
   5. ("External links" section) It is generally recommended to keep these lists of external links short, at least no longer than necessary (e.g. 3rd § of Wikipedia:External links). I see little benefit in the Chicago Chorale link (5th item): nothing there that isn't already contained in the Wikipedia article. I'd remove it as redundant. Similar for the Los Angeles Master Chorale link (6th item), apart that it contains "... a key teaching of the Lutheran faith ..." as a description of the text of the middle movement (one of the Romans 8 texts) – this might help out on the 4–1 issue mentioned below: maybe adopt this web page as source (and no longer list it as EL). Anyhow, there seems to be no problem to limit the total number of external links to 5.
   6. ("Recordings" section, first sentence) "... has been recorded often ..." – "often" is one of these words that are better avoided per the words to watch guidance: is it possible to quantify (approximately), e.g. something like "over 50 times" or whatever can be supported by a reliable source?

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   1. (in "Cited sources", Online sources sub-list, 2nd to 4th item) "Dahn, Lukas ..." – why "Lukas"? Afaik the author calls himself "Luke", and I have never seen the "Lukas" variant before.
   2. (in "Cited sources", Books sub-list, 1st entry) the Dubin source does not seem to be a book, but an on-line article.
   3. (in "Cited sources", Journals sub-list) I'd add a language indicator ("lang" parameter) to the Schmidt 2011 source, which appears to be entirely in German (although it was published in an international journal with an English-language title)
   4. (in "Cited sources", Books sub-list, 3rd entry) I'd indicate the ismn and/or publisher's id for the Hofmann 1995 source: it is a bit difficult to find otherwise. I suppose it is this edition. If that is correct, it also needs to be indicated that Hofmann only wrote the introductory chapter, while it is a score otherwise edited by the New Bach Edition (NBE) editor Konrad Ameln (1965). The BA 5132 source (currently 12th item of the Online sources sub-list) is somewhat similar: it is another reprint of the Konrad Ameln 1965 NBE edition (not sure why it has "2020" as date in the list): I'd recommend a similar layout for the listing of these two Bärenreiter sources. Similar for the two Carus sources (11th and 13th items of the Online sources sub-list): publisher's ID and/or ismn, and indicate introductory chapter if that's the only part of the source used as reference. One of these sources has "revised 2003" on its title page, so assigning both of these Carus sources to 2002 seems incorrect.
   5. (in references, as well in-line as listed sources) there are currently 15 "...google.de" links: for all of these instances "de" should be changed to "com".

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   1. (in lead section, 1st §) "The dogmatic epistle..." (and in "Text") "The scriptures here speak of ..., in a dogmatic way, ..." – I have my doubts about the "dogmatic" qualification for the text of Romans 8:1–2, 9–11: the qualification is certainly not covered by the reference given for it in the lead (Eckerson 2020), which only mentions the epistle in passing, while it discusses a movement with non-scripture text. The reference given for it in the "Text" section (Schmidt 2011) does not mention this qualification in its executive summary, and if it mentions it somewhere else in that journal article, a page number should be given. "Dogmatic" is certainly not a type of interpretation that should be generated by a Wikipedia editor, for that it is too much of an interpretation (not just a summary).

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Initial review completed, awaiting further updates, and proposing to assess what that resulted in somewhere early next week, if that is enough time to follow up on the points indicated in this review. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

   Added 2-A-5 – something I had missed thus far, sorry about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

   Delaying final review with 24H – see extended comment I just added to 1-A-1 below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

   [Assesment at time of closure:] too many issues remain. And I'd like to start editing the article myself, instead of someone else copy-pasting what I wrote into the article. Some major rearrangements are needed for this article to become GA level imho, and I fear that rubber-stamping it GA now will not only mean a considerable period of inactivity for this article, but also that it would be used as a model for other Bach motet articles, which shouldn't be done in its current state. I really wish I could give some official affirmation of the good effort and constructive collaboration that has gone into this, something like "pass, but...", but that is not really an option in GA review closures afaik. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Gerda's replies

1 A

• 1 Extant parts - I see what you mean by ambiguous "parts", but don't know what else to say, meaning Stimmen. Jmar67, would you know?
  • Ah, I thought so: the c. 1735 manuscript copy does however not consist of Stimmen, they are a SATB "score" of the music of four of the motet's eleven movements. The manuscript in question is the Dietel manuscript (for which we have a link!), or, as the indicated source has it: "Choralsätze (1[=11], 3, 7) sind in der Choralsammlung-Quelle J. L. Dietels (um1735) erhalten", the same manuscript referred to by Melamed when he talks about the "terminus ante quem" of the composition. See this 1983 Bach-Jahrbuch article, p. 85, for a quick overview of the Dietel manuscript's characteristics ("... in Partiturform ..."). In that manuscript score some Teile of the composition are preserved (which could be also translated as "some parts of the composition ..."). In other words, the article text needs to be rephrased, while the pre-1735 copied movements are not copied as Stimmen, but as score. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Adding a suggestion, something like: "Four-part chorales were extracted from the motet before c. 1735" – which could replace both sentences containing the "... copied parts ..." (or "... copies of parts ...") expression. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Updated the above wording proposal as, indeed, it includes the only five-part chorale by Bach that was adopted in 18th-century manuscript collections of his chorales (the only other 5-part chorale in these collections, BWV Anh. 170, is spurious). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Oops, have to correct myself again: in the 18th-century manuscript chorale collections the five-part chorale BWV 227/3 was extracted as a four-part chorale (i.e. omitting soprano II) – see Luke Dahn and Bach Digital. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, very helpful. I changed in lead, history and publication, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Looks OK. A minor point is that the three Dietel chorales comprise four motet movements, because the music of the first movement is identical to that of the last movement (and in the Dietel manuscript all music is notated without text anyhow). See Bach Digital source: "Choralsätze (1[=11], 3, 7)" (emphasis added). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  I saw that, but as the music is identical - which was said at least before the Publication section - I dared to leave out that bit. Or how could it be said without complicating the issue? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  In the "History" section we started from:

  Copies of parts are extant which were dated before 1735.

  Then I suggested something like:

  Four-part chorales were extracted from the motet before c. 1735.

  The current phrasing is:

  Three of the chorales are contained in a manuscript collection of Bach's chorale settings by Johann Ludwig Dietel, a student of Bach at the Thomasschule. This collection is dated around 1735, which is therefore the latest possible date for this motet.

  This hardly seems like an improvement: technically, i.e. on content, not really correct (the 5-part chorale is not "contained" in the Dietel manuscript, while one of its five voices was not copied in that manuscript). Phrasing hardly easier to digest ("Three of the chorales" would seem to imply chorales of the motet, while what is actually meant are chorales of the Dietel copy). Not at all "more concise" (criterion 1-A asks me to check for conciseness —"... prose is clear and concise ..."— so this is a clear fail for wandering off in irrelevant secondary information about Dietel being a pupil and whatnot: for the dating issue only the fact that part of the motet was copied, and when that was done, is important). Once the "Dietel" name is used it seems logical to use the available Dietel manuscript link, as suggested above. Also "which is therefore the latest possible date" (my emphasis) is also not really correct: it remains "possible" that the final putting together of the 11 movements of the motet is still later, only, the scholars, applying "educated guesswork" suppose that unlikely.

  (in other sections about the same topic, not drawn into this little comparison: changed wording in lead, and added even more extended content in "Legacy").

  I'd suggest (for the "History" section) something like:

  The Dietel manuscript, written around 1735, contains three chorales extracted from the motet, thus the composition of the motet is supposed to have been completed before that time.

  But here's my problem: current proceedings absorb more energy than is warranted by improvement results in mainspace. The current version of the article is hardly a model for whatever other Bach motet article. I'd rather apply improved wording in the article myself, which I won't do before the end of this procedure.

  The general idea being that a good article (GA) has as well attractive readable prose, as also correct and verifiable content. Often the suggestions formulated in my initial review lead to hardly more correct content, hardly better referencing, and mostly less fluent and/or less concise prose.

  I'll give this another 24H, during which I'd suggest the nominator (with or without the assistance of others – Jmar67, your complementary efforts are greatly appreciated) goes through the entire article enhancing its readability, checking and referencing the facts contained in it, etc. Maybe we're not too far off a GA-level article, I'll assess in 24H. --Francis Schonken (talk 09:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. I made another edit pass in the last two days, but my edits have focused on problems at the language level and I would likely not recognize the passages you feel need improvement. Please do that. Jmar67 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• 2 fixed, I hope
• 3 fixed, I hope --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• 4 Perhaps it's too short. Melamed argues for some early - vs. the 1723 claim. Wolff argues for educational - vs. funeral. Jones argues for late 1720s - vs. Melamed's "early". Should the contradictions be emphasized? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Emphasised is not the right word, but that it is educated guesswork by different experts who speculate in different directions. In other words, that there is no unified analysis among scholars (and thus Wikipedia should not give the impression that all content is covered by all experts). That should be stated as it is in these expert sources, without over- or underemphasis. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Trying to make that a bit clearer: 1-A-4 is not about more emphasis or less emphasis, but about keeping the entire time of origin description, that is as well of the composition as a whole, as also about its individual movements, in one place, so that a reader gets an overview of the main theories without having to shift from one section to another. As it is now, most of it is in the "History" section, so a reader might think he has got the info on the point after reading the "History" section (which would be a logical assumption of a reader), but then a crucial bit of information about the time of origin theories ("... matching compositions from the mid-1720s in Leipzig (etc)") is somewhere where it isn't expected. Maybe I could have put the issue under 3-B ("... stays focused ..."): in the "History" section there's loss of focus, while leaving out a crucial bit of the time of origin theories, and in section "9" there's loss of focus while going in details of the piece's history (which should not be in that section). The "ninth movement" is already mentioned separately in the "History" section, with some views on the history of that movement mentioned there, so the "matching compositions from the mid-1720s (etc)" should be joined to that discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• 5 I adopted your phrasing, most of it at least. "canon" was a word I "inherited" from an earlier version, - dropped now. As the motet article is linked, I guess we can leave details to it, - and thank you for improving it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  OK for the "irregularly" material (now split in two sentences). The "canon" material (also split in two sentences, with the "manuscripts" sentence in between), is hardly less problematic than the earlier version:

  Jesu, meine Freude is one of six works which were assigned consecutive numbers in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, BWV 225–230. For most of them, a manuscript autograph is missing, posing problems for dating them. Bach's biographer Philipp Spitta assigned the canon of six motets to the Leipzig years.

  (1) There are *seven* motets "which were assigned consecutive numbers in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis", i.e. BWV 225–231; (2) "canon of six motets" is still presented in a way that seems quite confusing for a reader who might have no advance knowledge regarding the structure of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis and regarding when Spitta wrote what he wrote (it is presented as if Spitta's writings follow after the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (they are nearly a century earlier). (3) I'm quite sure Spitta did not use the word "canon" in the context (but there's no reference for me to check whether he did...), so saying that he "assigned the canon" is not a very adequate phrasing; (4) the intermediary "manuscript" sentence makes it unclear that the BWV six are the canon six (in the current article text it is nowhere said that they are, and it seems a stretch for a lay reader to infer it from what is written).

  An additional suggestion (minor, so I didn't say anything about it yet): "manuscript autograph" is not the usual sequence in this context: in Bach's time an autograph is always handwritten – not as if the composer had a typewriter with which he could produce a "typewritten autograph". The usual sequence in the context is "autograph manuscript".

  Returning to the "canon": Melamed's account of the motets uses the "canon of six" concept (so it is defensible to do likewise), but e.g. Jones starts from a list of five motets (pp. 198ff.), and does not need the "canon of six" to explain that the authenticity of Jesu, meine Freude was never doubted, but that that does not solve its time of origin questions.

  The "canon of six" also seems rather a reception topic, and then rather for the 15 motets that got separate numbers in the BWV and its Anhang taken as a whole, than for this motet which has little to do with the around 10 motets with minor and major authenticity issues.

  I also don't care who put it in the article, just trying to find the best way to an improved article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  For the moment, I fixed the word order. Still thinking if we can do without mentioning "canon". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay, - more people died including Penderecki. I now restructured, placing the speculations about date and purpose after the description, leaving only hints at the insecurity in the history section. T separated text and chorale melody, bt both need a little more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  See extended reply regarding 1-A-1 above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

1 B

• 1 ref removed, nbsp installed - but no link to BWV which seems almost as common as names of countries which we don't link. The bolding of an important redirect, which also explains the title, seems of higher importance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The Paris, Texas article starts:

    Paris is a city and county seat of Lamar County, Texas, United States.

  not:

  Paris is a city and county seat of Lamar County, Texas, United States.

  So, no, the defence of the indefensible is not accepted, and, for the time being, failed on that point for not adhering to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  You made me smile. The example is completely different, because Texas is not a redirect, so should not be bolded. Some say that states such as Teas and California don't really need links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• 2 Well, so far I thought that "noted" was neutral, but learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• 3 I understand the comment about position of text and melody, and will sleep over it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• 4 same --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:5.7, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Section legacy now begun --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• 5 same - and then I was pinged to ANI, and now I'm tired ;) - to be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'll look at the external links in the end, sometimes I "park" there what might become a ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• 6 For recordings of the motets, I asked Thoughtfortheday. Will look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I have agreed to do some work on recordings of the motets, but it is probably going to take me a few days.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • "Over 60" could be referenced to here --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

    done, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

2 A

• 1 Sorry, was from memory, memory was wrong. Fixed.
• 2 moved
• 3 language added
• 4 Bärenreiter adjusted --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  Carus also adjusted --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt and Thoughtfortheday: the Carus 2003 reference is currently a complete disaster, despite two editors collaborating in an effort to get it right. Here is what I expected to see, more or less, as the "Sources" entry (in the "Books" sub-list, together with a similarly updated Carus 2002 reference):

  {{cite book |translator-last1=Lunn |translator-first1=Jean |date=2003 |editor1-last=Graulich |editor1-first=Günter |editor1-link=Günter Graulich |editor2-last=Wolf |editor2-first=Uwe |editor2-link=Uwe Wolf (musicologist) |title=Johann Sebastian Bach: Jesu, meine Freude / Jesus, my salvation – BWV 227 |url=https://www.carusmedia.com/images-intern/medien/30/3122700/3122700x.pdf |type=[[Urtext edition|Urtext]], full score |series=Stuttgarter Bach-Ausgaben |language=de, en |others=Continuo realisation by Horn, Paul |publisher=[[Carus Verlag|Carus]] |id=CV 31.227 |ref=harv }}

  In combination with sfn footnotes called thus:

  {{sfn|Graulich|Wolf|2003|p (or: pp)=...}}

  After which,

  1. the Graulich/Wolf source needs to be repositioned alphabetically in the sources list (starting with G... instead of formerly with W...
  2. the 14 instances of footnotes calling this reference source need to be updated.

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm sorry too for not taking care over this reference.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  I hope I managed to apply the above, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Carus 2003 looks OK, apart from that a bullet ("*") is missing at the start of its "cite book" line in the sources list (fixed --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)).

  Carus 2002 still needs to be done.

  I tried. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Thoughtfortheday: I'd suggest, if possible, to delay your edits to this article till after tomorrow. Tomorrow is the last day of Gerda's GA nomination: you completely messed up the Carus 2003 reference, and then come here telling you didn't touch it? Your later edits, introducing a source that can not be accepted as a reliable source is only a further step away from a successful GA procedure. So, some patience, and in the mean while best revert your edits claiming a "first recording" based on an unreliable source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  I don't understand your point about my claiming not to have touched the Carus reference. I apologised for not making a good job of it. Why would I have apologised for something I supposedly had not done? Anyhow, surely you could assume some good faith on my part. If you continue to be offensive, I will report you. You have been warned.

  As regards the Bach cantatas reference, I see it has been amended, so it is up to you if you want to amend the section further.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry for misunderstanding what you intended as an apology. Apology accepted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  I looked for a better ref for the first recording, and found one for their performances, included, + for the recording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  The quote is mangled (key words left out, typos in others) and thus unintelligible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, better? - Bedtime, it tells me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• 5 changed ".de" to ".com" where I found it, but I didn't find 15 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There are still 14 ".de"s in {{sfn}} template page links. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

    Sorry, didn't think that far. Fixing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

4

• 1 I dropped the word "dogmatic" which is probably too specific for what I mean, something like teaching, but would not know a better one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I mentioned two occurrences of the word "dogmatic" as a qualification for Romans 8:1–2, 9–11: the issue was, thus far, only addressed for the first of these two occurrences. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Additional suggestion (see 1-B-5 above): the Los Angeles Master Chorale webpage contains "... a key teaching of the Lutheran faith ..." as a description of the Romans 8:9 text. This might help out to find an adequate description based on external sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

    I tried to adopt the "key Lutheran teaching", - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

    The prose is OK, but you used the wrong source: "Posner 2020" is the Los Angeles *Philharmonic* source (which was already listed as a source and contains nothing about Romans 8:9 as a "key Lutheran teaching"). The second part of 1-B-5 above is about the Los Angeles *Master Chorale* webpage, not written by Posner but by "Thomas May, program annotator for the Los Angeles Master Chorale", which should be extracted from the External links list before it can be used as a source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

    Oops, sorry, I was too tired to look beyond Los Angeles. Fixed. I'll return to the motet after dealing with two women who recently died, so have a certain priority. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for completing the initial review, I will go over the points and hope to complete responses and changes within a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Towards closure

Still needing attention:

• 1-A-1: only resolved for the second time the c. 1735 (i.e. Dietel) manuscript is mentioned:
  • In the intro (2nd §): "Chorales from the motet were part of a manuscript collection of chorale settings around 1735" still reads a bit awkward.
  • The new (third) mentioning of the topic in the "Legacy" section ("Manuscripts and publication" subsection, 1st §: "Three of the chorales, movements 1 (which is the same as 11), 3 and 7 are contained in Dietel's manuscript, a collection of 149 of Bach's chorale settings, dated around 1735. In the five-part setting of movement 3, Dietel omitted the second soprano part.") is too extended, and hardly relevant to the Legacy topic. The motet's legacy was well established by the time the Dietel manuscript became a focus of attention in Bach-scholarship in the 1980s (!) – and there's no sign whatsoever that the trajectory of the motet's legacy was in any way influenced by research related to the Dietel manuscript. That manuscript gave a clue relating to the time of origin of the piece (which is history, not legacy), and that's all for BWV 227. The motet did not gain or lose any importance or popularity by the realisation it may have been composed in the first 12 years of Bach's tenure in Leipzig instead of in his first year there (what was believed before the updated dating of the motet because of the Dietel manuscript researches). If (!) the Dietel manuscript is mentioned in connection to the motet's legacy then it should in that narrative get far less attention than e.g. CPE Bach's publication of two four-part chorales from the motet in the second half of the 18th century (currently not even mentioned), which is a true legacy topic (but of zero importance w.r.t. the time of origin discussion). There are even several other 18th-century manuscripts of Bach chorale collections which were more important for the motet's legacy than the Dietel manuscript, which played no relevant role in the first two-and-half centuries of the motet's legacy.
• 1-A-4: I suggested to keep the time of origin discussion together in the "History" section. Instead, the time of origin discussion is now in three sections, and most elaborately in the section where it shouldn't be (in the "Legacy" section). See also my comment in the second bullet of the preceding point: there is no sign that any part of the time of origin discussion influenced the trajectory of the motet's legacy.
• 1-A-5: There were two issues: the phrasing of the cantata occasions comparison, and the "motet canon" material:
  • I can't agree with the current phrasing regarding the cantata occasions comparison, which, after I consented to a previous version of that phrasing, was expanded with less relevant wordiness, so that it no longer passes the conciseness criterion (part of GA criteria 1-A).
  • The "motet canon" issue remains unresolved. It is still in the "History" section while I suggested it has no real relevance in that section. I suggested to mention it in the "Reception" section, if it needs to be mentioned at all. Instead of moving the "motet canon" topic to a "Reception" section (which wasn't done), the bulk of the history-related topics was moved from the "History" section to the "Legacy" section, so that the "motet canon" wording gets, comparatively, even more weight in the "History" section. I already explained the unsuitability of this motet's history-related material in a "Legacy" section in two previous points.
• 1-B-1: happy to have made the nominator smile: the point that the "doesn't need to be linked" argument is spurious was excellently illustrated by the example. The main point, that the relevant style guide says to link, is however currently not followed in the article. No sufficient rationale can be given why this article would be different from any other that falls under that guidance.
• 1-B-2: not too happy with the results thus far. The main point should be that a reader can see the difference, before checking sources, between what is considered generally proven in scholarship, and what is a scholar's educated guesswork. I'm not going to mention all instances where a further improvement is still desirable, just an example ("Date and purpose" section, 2nd sentence): "Bernhard Friedrich Richter was the first to state, in the Bach-Jahrbuch of 1912, that the motets were music commissioned for special occasions" – apart from the source from which this is derived giving a different version of the facts in its German-language version (p. IV) and its English-language version (p. VII), the wording in the Wikipedia article reads too terse, and is formulated too absolute: this is one scholar (Ameln) confirming the educated guesswork of a prior researcher (Richter)... a few decades later most Bach scholars would deem the "all of them commissioned" assertion too speculative to be further divulged. In other words, Richter had proven nothing. From that perspective, the quoted sentence just doesn't read right.
• 1-B-3: I suggested to "... move the description of the basis of the composition, that is chorale (text + tune) and the Romans 8 excerpt, to the start of the History section" (emphasis added). It was moved to the end of that section, with the chorale text and chorale tune in two different subsections. And instead of starting the section with that material, the "History" section starts with the more bloated version of the "cantata occasions comparison" material (see above). All that, together with the transfer of the bulk of the history material to the "Legacy" section doesn't really work for any reader (whether experienced or inexperieced in classical music topics) – and we're getting further and further from what the relevant guidance proposes as article structure, where my suggestion was to follow it unless there's a sound rationale not to.
• 1-B-4: suggested to move to a "Reception" section, instead it was moved to a "Legacy" section. It may be, in part, a personal preference to use the word "Reception" and not "Legacy" in this context, but it is anyhow true that doing "history" in a Legacy section is even more absurd than doing it in a Reception section: the current article structure reads as if the bulk of the motet's Legacy is discussion among scholars. That may be true for BWV Anh. 159 and even more so for BWV Anh. 167, but not for this motet, for which the whole time of origin discussion is hardly a part of its Legacy: it was always considered a motet by Bach, is performed, recorded, belongs to the core of the composer's production – whether it was written in 1723 or 1735 is hardly relevant to its legacy. For the BWV Anh. 159 motet, its authenticity discussions and subsequent exile to the Anhang (only recently lifted → BWV 1164) *did* have an effect on its reception trajectory (... far less recordings to name only one effect), yet even there I see no reason to have its "time of origin" discussion in the Reception section: let's keep that in the "History" section.
• 1-B-5: main point not addressed handled 16:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC) – however, the only available audio was removed, not OK: that audio seems more useful than the German National Library EL (at least, for an English-language audience). If this were a FA, the article content and its references would need to sufficiently cover all aspects of the topic so that the German National Library link would become dispensable, but if, at that time, the Umeå Akademiska Kör's recording would still be the only audio directly available from the article, it still would be best to keep it. 05:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1-B-6: the number of recordings rough estimate has vanished (not what I intended). It was replaced by the first recording material, which, as material, is very much OK (except that its Elste 2000 ref seems to trigger a technical error): I would not remove that new material, but the rough estimate of number of recordings remains meaningful too. (I made an error: the rough estimate is still there, but not where I expected it, i.e. in the introductory sentences of the section 05:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
• 2-A-4: still not OK, for instance there is no evidence that Graulich was in any form involved in the Carus 2002 edition: a similar format, as suggested, does not equal copy-pasted content of the cite template. That's not the only error, but I'm tired of listing long compilations of minor and major errors, which apparently only get resolved if it is typed out word for word for copy-paste into the article.

Any comments before I conclude the review (which I would normally do in a few hours, unless I can find a reasonable rationale for further delay)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary. I was out, will look, but first have somm food, - will ping you when I'm done, hopefully later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• 1-A-1
  • I used the template now, and used the link twice, and made the wording closer to your suggestion.
  • in Legacy: I may have misunderstood you as for the position. I understood that the manuscript and other details about the difficult dating should rather appear after the description of texts, chorale and music. Would that be between Music and Legacy, then?
  • Should CPE Bach's publication of two four-part chorales be mentioned? ... the others you mentioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I moved the dating topic to History now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I think I was clear: If Dietel is mentioned as a reception topic, then CPE's 18th-century edition of two of the motet's chorales should be mentioned there too, with more bandwith than Dietel. Which leaves three options for how to mention any of this in the "Reception" section: mention neither, mention both, and mention CPE's edition without mentioning Dietel. If this were a FA I'd propose a choice between these three options. Since this is a GA, I could go with any of these three options, but not with the current one, which is mentioning Dietel (less important from a reception perspective) and not mentioning CPE (more important from a reception perspective), while that is a failure of balance which should be avoided at GA level. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
      • At present, no mention, - until CPE comes as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
        • [Assesment at time of closure:] Dietel material in two subsections of the "History" section: fails conciseness criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1-A-4
  • Per above, the dating is now back to history.
    • You keep multiplying places where parts of the "time of origin" discussion are to be found (currently four: "Background", "Date and purpose", "9", "Manuscripts and publication"; not counting the fifth mentioning, which is the summary in the lead section) and/or redundantly repeated, where my original suggestion was to keep the whole time of origin description in one place. Not OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I removed it now from background, hoping the reader will remember from the lead. In "9", I believe the mentioning of the "older version" needs to be repeated. I feel less strongly about repeating it in the manuscripts, willing to remove (the shortened sentence) there if you think it's too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC) I removed it now also from manuscripts until CPE is there to match. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
        • [Assesment at time of closure:] Time of origin material too extended, and receiving too much focus (in two different subsections of the "History" section!). The time of origin debate is mostly a debate among scholars, which for the limited range when the motet may have been composed (12 years) is of rather limited significance w.r.t. what this motet represents: balance is not OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1-A-5
  • Phrasing copied from your suggestion.
  • I dropped the "canon" for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • ... which led to awkward phrasing "Jesu, meine Freude is one of six motets assigned numbers in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis of BWV 225–230" is not OK: "... the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis of BWV ..." seems almost meaningless, and the whole sentence needs to be read at least three times before a reader can even guess what it is supposed to convey, and why it is in the article. What should be explained at that point is rather, something like, that among around 15 extant compositions which at some point or another were designated as a motet by J. S. Bach (BWV 118, 225–231, Anh. 159–165, deest), this is one of only five (BWV 225–229) which, without exception, have always been considered as belonging in that category. Jones p. 198 would probably be the better reference for that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
      • ((edit conflict) replying to 'I see a problem of "how much of the Bach motet article should we repeat here". The average reader may have heard that Bach wrote 6 motets, and I don't think detailed education about that being not true should be part of this article. I'd like to give some number, though, expressing that he wrote many cantatas, but few motets. How?', now deleted:) Alternatively, they may have read Jones, who only mentions five: the sixth one was only stable for about a century (and in the last few decades more or less lost that status) – the other five were stable from the early days (Leipzig performances continuing after Bach's death) until today, i.e. nearly three centuries. If you don't want to mention the eleven "unstable" ones, that's fine by me, but I'm done spelling it out how that can be phrased: if I have a good phrasing I'll put it in the article myself (if none is there then), in a few hours when this GA review is closed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I took that phrasing, with thanks, an aswer to my earlier question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
        • [Assesment at time of closure:] ... which introduced new problems: my approximate proposal was never intended as a cut-n-paste (when I propose a cut-n-paste it is in quote marks). The new problem is the in-line external link: I used that to clarify on the talk page what I was talking about (for the "deest"): in mainspace that should be done otherwise than with an in-line external link. As said, I'm done spelling it out word for word before someone gets it right in mainspace: I'll be placing my own wording in mainspace myself after the closure of this GA review. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1-B-1
  • I seem to have a language problem. For an article title in a foreign language, I believe that telling a reader how they can easily access it, here by simply typing "BWV 227" for a redirect, is of higher value than linking BWV, - a term that many will know, and others can find linked in the infobox and the navbox. - If we can't bold the redirect, I feel that we'd need a hatnote saying "BWV 227 redirects here", and I find the present solution much more elegant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Reasoning rejected as spurious. As a GA reviewer I check for conformity with current layout guidance (if you want to change the guidance this is not the forum where to do that): the current version does not conform. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1-B-2
  • I'm afraid that we get in territory here where I simply am not good enough in English to tell subtle differences in meaning. I don't notice any implied meaning of "proven", for example, in "stated". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • [Assesment at time of closure:] I'll work on the wording myself after closing this GA procedure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1-B-3
  • I feel rather strongly that talking about texts makes little sense before a reader gets familiar what a motet is, and what a Bach motet, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • [Assesment at time of closure:] but talking about chorale-related time-of-origin issues before chorale is clarified, as it is currently, does not make sense either. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1-B-4
  • The dating is now under history, and the section called Reception. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • [Assesment at time of closure:] still in two different subsections, separated by the section about the chorale/dictum explanation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1-B-5 I restored the sound file. I admit that the German National Library is redundatn to the authority control, but am told often that readers don't find it there. I am ready to remove it here if you feel strongly about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • [Assesment at time of closure:] OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1-B-6
  • "the number of recordings rough estimate has vanished" - I see it. (Perhaps it was restored while I was out.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • My error, see above: estimate of the total number of recordings should, however, logically rather be mentioned before one starts to describe individual recordings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
      • [Assesment at time of closure:] organisation of the recordings section still not OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• 2-A-4
  • I removed Graulich from Carus 2002 (although I believe that just the 2003 wording is more polite, because - I guess in both cases - Wolf relied pretty much on what his predecessor had done, and that was supposed to be mentioned somehow). Returning to those who recently died, - had missed Hertha Töpper. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • [Assesment at time of closure:] As said, many other issues regarding ref formatting remained, but I grew tired of detailing them, leading only to complete fixes if it was spelled out word for word (in which case I'd rather put it in the article myself, after the end of this procedure). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.