Talk:Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 06:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review and will make a detailed study soon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

First reading

• The lead section plunges straight in to the technicalities of the topic rather than introducing the reader to the scope of the main body of the text.

  This is one of about 200 cantatas which come with a standard lead of two lines, compare BWV 31. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• You could explain what a cantata is.

  I explained what a cantata by Bach is in Bach cantata. How much do you think should be repeated? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "Estomihi" - I am much more familiar with "Quinquagesima". Is there a special reason for using Estomihi?

  Yes, that Bach used Estomihi. The other is in the piped link. Do you think it should be added in brackets? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "The theme of the cantata is from the Gospel, not the healing but Jesus announcing his suffering in Jerusalem, and the disciples not understanding it." - This sentence is somewhat confusing.

  Will think. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "After quoting the Gospel, the text concludes what this means for the Christian in general, who is pictured as wanting to following Jesus even in suffering, although he does not comprehend, like the disciples." - Also confusing.
• "Its chorale theme ..." - what does this mean?

  The phrasing is one of the very few lines kept when expanding, I will change it. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "Du wahrer Gott und Davids Sohn, BWV 23" - In the lead, you mention that this was another audition piece, but you do not state this fact in paragraph 2 when talking about the first performance.

  Will do. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "The extant scores show that Bach composed BWV 23 already in Köthen" - Link "extant" and "Köthen". What is the significance of the "already"?

  I linked to extant, it turned out to be a dab, doesn't have music, just literature, and the link to wikt, - I am tempted to remove it, what would you say? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  He wrote 2 pieces, one already in Köthen, the other - this one - later in Leipzig, one prepared, the other - this one - more spontaneously. Ideas how to say that better? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Perhaps you could mention who Klaus Hofmann is or why his comments carry weight.

  In other GAs, it was agreed that this is mentioned for people who don't have a linked article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  You could say "Klaus Hofmann, of the Johann Sebastian Bach Institute, notes ..."

  Yes, but compare: "Given that we don't have an article on Mincham, I think the first sentence needs to explain who he is. Something parenthetical would do, like: "According to [musicologist/Back expert] Julian Mincham, the cantata has three parts" By contrast, because Hofmann and Gardiner are wikilinked, they don't need any introduction.". - It's boring for those who know Hofmann (he is mentioned in most cantata articles), the others can find out in popup or link, and Mincham is explained, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Hofmann points out the contrast of the two works" - Maybe this should read "between".
• "... sings the announcement of the suffering in Jerusalem," - I think this could be better phrased.
• "In the modified repeat of the first section, the voice holds a long note on the word Friede (peace), whereas the theme appears in the orchestra, a second time even in the continuo." - This sentence is somewhat confusing.
• "... by continuous runs in the oboe and violin I" - I would have used "for" instead of "in" here.
• "... "walking’ bass as a symbol of the disciples' journey to fulfilment" - Punctuation.
• "Mincham compares" - What is he comparing with what?

Summing up my comments, the prose is generally of a good standard (I did a little copy editing) and my chief criticism concerns the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I commented a few things and will work on changes now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I covered most of the good points, but may need help to rephrase "In the modified repeat of the first section, the voice holds a long note on the word Friede (peace), whereas the theme appears in the orchestra, a second time even in the continuo." - Peace is expressed by the long note, but the theme is still there, in the orchestra and finally even in the bass foundation, - don't know how to say it better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I have looked at some of the other Bach cantata that are GAs and see they are very similar in structure to this one. I particularly liked the lead in number 40. There is a passage in the lead of this article that currently reads -

• "The work in five movements begins with a scene from the Gospel reading, Jesus announcing his suffering in Jerusalem. An unknown poet wrote a sequence of aria and recitative, transferring the situation of the disciples who do not understand the announcement but follow Jesus, to a contemporary Christian."

Here is how I might phrase it:

• "The work, which is in five movements, begins with a scene from the Gospel reading in which Jesus foretells his Passion in Jerusalem. Next, there is an aria and recitative written by an unknown poet, in which a contemporary Christian takes the place of the disciples, who do not understand what Jesus is telling them about the events soon to unfold, but follow him nevertheless." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sound very good, taken, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• The final sentence in the lead is a bit confusing and needs rephrasing. Perhaps it could start "The cantata was first performed ..."

  I will look but certainly avoid the passive "was performed": he performed it, conducting from the keyboard, Gerda Arendt (talk)

• I think you might add to the image captions so that the casual reader (who probably only reads the lead and looks at the images) knows why they were included in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  will do, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I ran into a little problem doing so. I thought so far that cantatas were performed twice one Sunday, morning and afternoon. Now I found that it is true, but only on feast days. Otherways Nikolai and Thomas alternated. I checked the sources: none of them says which one. The Nikolaikirche claims that more first performances happened there. So at the moment "possible location" is all I can say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• We're nearly there. Is "proect" (#2, Music section) a typo? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally of good quality. There are a lot of technical terms and a number of German titles but these are wikilinked or translated as appropriate.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article is well laid out and complies with MOS guidelines
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article is well referenced and the references are well laid out.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources appear to be adequate and reliable
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not that I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It does.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It does.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article has been much expanded over the last two months by the nominator and hardly anyone else has edited it.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Two of the images are suitably licensed and the third is in the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The relevance of the images to the topic is explained by the captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I believe the GA criteria are met by this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you helped improving! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)