Talk:Mass in B minor structure/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this work. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Check fn.4 - On a quick glance, I there is a stray "|ref=" sticking out in the text.

Content questions and issues

• in "History and parody": The parts Kyrie, Gloria and Credo are all designed with choral sections as the outer movements, framing an intimate center of theological significance Is this sentence someone else's estimation (thus, needing a source), or is it your summation of the previous statements?

Mere observation: the outer movements are choral, the center in Kyrie is a duet, in Gloria a duet, in Credo a four-part choir. Source Rathey points out the significance for each center piece. The sentence summarizes what follows. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• in "Structure" - since "mixolydian" is mentioned, should the column be relabeled "key/mode" since modes technically aren't keys?

mixolydian was in a comment until someone wanted the table smaller, - I understand it more as the mode of the cantus firmus than of Bach's work. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• in "Confiteor" -- "I profess" is profiteor (profess, declare), not confiteor which is "confess" or "acknowledge"...speaking as a former seminarian, there is a big difference...and it has its roots in a long discourse on the word by Augustine.

I may have a language problem, "confess" and "acknowledge" seem very different, and I would not "confess one baptism", or would I? Learning. Gerda Arendt (talk)

This is the point that Augustine makes...when we "confess" we "acknowledge" the depth of our sin. It's the same situation in various translations of the Te Deum. The protestant faiths in the United States use "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin" more frequently than "I confess one baptism for the remission of sin" (which some Anglo-Catholics adhere to, as well as some Baptists).--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In German it's "bekennen", - "acknowledge" seems to weak, will take "confess" then. (I think I took "profess" from a source but don't remember from where.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm surprised in the German creed that "beichten" isn't used.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Ich bekenne die eine Taufe", - "beichten" is an act, exclusively used for confession of sins and asking forgiveness, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• In "No. 4 Osanna..." probably on opening movement of the secular cantata Es lebe der König, der Vater im Lande, BWV Anh11, of 1732. -- should be sourced.

done Gerda Arendt (talk)

• In "Dona nobis pacem" - By quoting Gratias, Bach connects asking for peace to thanks and praise to God. - needs a citation.

A citation for the fact that the same music "connects" "Dona nobis pacem" (Give us peace) and "Gratias agimus tibi" (We give you thanks")? Other wording? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Not for that the same music is used, but whether there is a source that it was Bach's intent to connect the two thoughts of "Thanking" and "asking" for peace.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bach's intent is not mentioned, - we simply see that he used the same music for both thoughts, - how can that be worded? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Original research concerns.

I notice a lot of content is based on (putatively) your interpretation directly from score reading and analysis...as a fellow musician and classical music buff, it's rather obvious to me what it means when you write "Whenever the word "mortuorum" appears, the voices sing long low notes, whereas "resurrectionem" is illustrated in triad motifs leading upwards" which cites back to pp. 180–181 in the score. However, I'm a little curious and cautious about the balance between what is considered original research and what is not original research...and how this comports with WP:SYNTHNOT (especially WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not obvious II). This isn't like a matter of a corresponding translation of a passage for an article, the interpretative nature of the music theory goes a little beyond that balance--almost to the point of putting out an expert opinion. Could you convince me otherwise?--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I could say more specifically that the low notes for "mortuorum" are for example in the alto in measures 133 and 134, the upward triads in the tenor in 134, simultaneously, on p. 181, - but would it help? No interpretation, just observation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(after "our" great performance, mentioned on my talk:) I could say very specifically that this can be observed on page 9 of this pdf, - would that help? - As the numbering of movements and measures will be different in different editions, pointing at a specific one which is accessible online might be a good idea. However, it shows only the vocal parts and the continuo, so can't be applied to matters of scoring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Pic captions? I tend to think that for most of the images of the incipits, the caption seems redundant or self-explanatory. What do you think of having it for the first but drop for the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think they all should be kept. Some provide useful further information, but even if they don't (admittedly, the majority), there's no guarantee that the images will always show up next to their respective description. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Michael's comments and observations on placement, and add that I err on the side of providing more information and direction through caption, even if redundant. Sometimes it might not be self-explanatory...especially for the regrettable "readers" who only look at the pictures. Also, while it's not GA-required but knowing you always look ahead to FAC where the question will be asked: have you thought about adding "|alt=" parameters to the images, per WP:ALT? --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, helped. I didn't think of FAC yet, but you gave me an idea ;) - what would I say as alt for incipits? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• That's a good question. :) It's not an easy think like saying "white castle hamburger patty, bun, onions" or "painting of a ugly man in a red shirt". Let me think about that and get back to you. Or maybe we'll ask at the WP:ALT talk page. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would try "Notes of the first sung music in the movement xyz", or "Music of ...", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Final Assessment: Pass

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is a comprehensive article on the structure of the Bach b minor mass--an article topic which is both ambitious to conceive and difficult to address--especially because it concerns an arduous musical work that is huge and unforgiving for the unprepared. User:Gerda Arendt is to be commended for the breadth of musical knowledge she brings to this article and for the depth of research which augments its content.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Excellent well-written English prose by a native German speaker. It is compelling and addresses the work with a proper balance of concision and depth.

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

   I do not see any issues with the GA-relevant MOS policies.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   An appropriate reference section per MOS and related guidelines.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   The article is exceptionally well-sourced to reliable sources.

   C. No original research:

   I had some doubts concerning a theoretical question regarding OR, but the nominator has assuaged me of them with a cogent argument.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article addresses sufficiently the topics major aspects with a keen, expert focus.

   B. Focused:

   as above in 3a.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral and does not express any bias.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article seems stable to me. I do not see any evidence of edit wars or content disputes.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   Article contains several images that are informative, illustrative, and appropriately tagged.

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

   Images are relevant and sufficiently captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congratulations on preparing an excellent article on a difficult and quite demanding subject.

Thank you! So far this is the article I am most proud of, dear to my heart for more than one reason. During our recent concert, I had a good view of Bach's score because the continuo player used it (bottom pic). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)