Talk:Preise, Jerusalem, den Herrn, BWV 119
 | Preise, Jerusalem, den Herrn, BWV 119 has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 29, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Preise, Jerusalem, den Herrn from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
 | A fact from Preise, Jerusalem, den Herrn, BWV 119 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 October 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Paraphrase
editThe source says "the spiritual rather than the secular authority has the last word", - the article says "implying that earthly powers do not last, but God – the supreme ruler – is entitled to have the last word." I suggest to better quote the source because it does not support "earthly powers do not last", nor "the supreme ruler". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
1000 years Leipzig
editWhat they celebrate is "1000-jährige urkundliche Ersterwähnung Leipzigs", first mentioning of Leipzig in a document. I don't know if "founding" is the right term for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, open to alternatives, but "1000 years Leipzig" doesn't make sense in English. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't know the proper term, do you? There must be one. For the church it's easier: the building. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I see you do. Will try to remember "recorded mentioning", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Preise, Jerusalem, den Herrn, BWV 119/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Smerus (talk · contribs) 11:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well written
editOverall absolutely acceptable. Two quibbles which I would raise:
- History and words - 'Bach could count on the entire council (his employer) listening, and likely also civil servants' - 'probably' is better than 'likely' in colloquial English.
- Scoring and structure - I suggest adding 'the musicologist' or 'the editor' before 'Alfred Durr' so that it is clear where this is coming from.
Verifiable with no original research
editWell sourced and cited as one would expect from this editor.
Broad in its coverage, Neutral
editExemplary on both counts and well-focussed.
Stable
editNo problems
Images
editAppropriate images and clear tables
Summary
editI have no problems in passing this for GA, but the editor might like to take a look at the two quibbles under "Well-written".--Smerus (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent, super article.--Smerus (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)