Talk:Widerstehe doch der Sünde, BWV 54

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Widerstehe doch der Sünde, BWV 54/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 08:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• A thought struck me, do you, on any of this series of articles, link to BWV for us uneducated types?

It's linked in the infobox, and may not be linked from the bolded redirect, ask Finnusertop. More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Bachs first " -> "Bach's first".

sure --GA

• Sunday Oculi, the latter links to Oculus, is that what you want, especially as you link Oculi to something different later on?

No, thanks for pointing that out! - I made it a piped link to Lent, also created Oculi Sunday as a redirect. --GA

• You link to Dissonance twice, that's a dab page, you probably wanted Consonance and dissonance.

yes --GA

• Any reason why Schlosskirche is in italics? I looked at the Schlosskirche link, it redirects to Schloss Weimar, is that its real name?

copied from O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165, - some want everything other language in italics --GA

• "Alfred Dürr suggested" you could introduce Herr Dürr, e.g. "The German musicologist Alfred Dürr suggested..."

I could, - some argue that should be done when there is no link, - now he is almost the pope on the topic - how to say that? (Again: compare the other) --GA

Yes, the link is there, but I see no harm in introducing these commentators, it makes it much clearer to the reader why their opinion is worth including. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Remembering discussions on some TFA blurb, I said Bach scholar, but please don't ask me to insert a nationality ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm good with "Bach scholar"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• No need to overlink Alfred (i.e. unlink "taken from Alfred Dürr"...)

sure --GA

• Not keen on the use of bold to emphasise the names of the movements.

again compare the other, - the alternative would be to have them as the titles of the paragraphs, - then they would be just as bold and would make for clumsy links everywhere these movements are linked from, while as it is you can easily link with the movement number without knowledge of the German, - links starting with the table here but could be from anywhere on WP --GA

My biggest worry is that they seem to be contravening MOS for WP:MOSBOLD which isn't a GA criterion but always worth remembering. I know other articles may exist with this, but it doesn't necessarily make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, this was in a recent TFA, without complaints, - I can make them redirects if you want, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

ps: perhaps you want to talk about the "boldness" in recent edits on St Matthew Passion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry, I suppose for GA it's really not a major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's about it, so I'll put it on hold for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, very observant! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm passing to GA, outstanding issues shouldn't preclude it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)