Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a

edit
(
)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nominated at 08:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

  • Nominated one day after creation, therefore new enough. Qualifies for "long enough" by a factor of nearly 10 (14568 characters of prose.) Article is written in neutral language, and the inline citations utilize a liberal selection of sources throughout the entire article. No paraphrasing or other copyright concerns detected. My preference is ALT2. The first hook is a bit confusing. Alt1 is good, but I find ALT2 to be more interesting than the average DYK hook. This hook fact is directly cited, and can be found in Jones, pages 132-133. The hook itself is neutral, negative BLP not applicable here. QPQ complete. No image to check. Ready for mainpage exposure. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Several paragraphs lack cites, per DYK rules. Yoninah (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • They are based on the score, written today, long after the nomination. I will supply page numbers tonight (but can't help thinking that the article is a few times long enough without the paragraphs). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of long enough; DYK requires at least one cite per paragraph. There is no cite in the last paragraph under History, and onward through the description of the score and each movement. Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I said I will add refs, no? I FEEL that the article was long enough without the paragraphs I added today, and if they cause problems I can remove them until after DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, now I understand what you wrote in parentheses. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If that each paragraph must have an inline citation, shouldn't that appear in the rules, and in the meta material in the actual review process? I must have missed that discussion. Nonetheless I agree it is a good standard to follow, and in fact I passed this article because just above the "un-sourced" paragraphs the source for them is cited. I didn't view these as individual paragraphs, but a section, broken into parts, and felt the section as a whole was sourced. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever Teh Rulez, I added the page numbers that will be requested in a GA review anyway. They will not help readers who have different editions of a score, - for them the precise naming of text and measure numbers - which was there - will be more helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Gerda. What about the first paragraph under Scoring and structure? Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That is kind of a sub-lead of things mentioned later. I will follow the rulez and double the refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • See remark at Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a#WP:PRIMARY concerns - these need definitely be sorted before wider (...e.g. main page) exposure is given to the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose it best to give a somewhat wider treatment to the four canticles in the Magnificat 243a article (somewhat like the treatment of the individual 12 movements): these canticles are the object of the DYK, the article doesn't give much information on them. E.g. Kuhnau, who used the text of these four canticles in a predecessor Christmas cantate isn't even mentioned in the 243a article, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
* I responded on the talk. This is DYK. It will grow, and feel free to add. I actually think it's ripe for a merge with the later one in D. No rush, Christmas would be a good day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
* re. PRIMARY, see my answer there; re. DYK level: the DYK is about the "added four movements", the treatment of which is insufficient currently in the article (notwithstanding the many outstanding qualities of the article), so I really oppose this being ready for DYK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The sections with "primary sources" were moved from the article, and information on the Christmas parts added. Please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think we're about where we need to be for more exposure on the article(s) (plural for the highly linked BWV 243). I'd leave the discretion to you DYK people from here on. Sorry for not being too consequential on reference formatting, less acquainted with the templates. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
However... the noteworthy fact proposed under ALT2: "... that Bach added four movements to his Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, composed for the first Marian feast, when he performed it again for Christmas?" appears to be unreferenced. It is on several Wikipedia pages (I think also the cantatas pages mention it), but I didn't find any corroboration in any of the sources I read thusfar (that is up to and including the Jenkins 2000 introduction for Novello). All of them posit Christmas 1723 as the first version of the Magnificat (so no prior version from 2 July without the laudes):
  1. It shouldn't be presented as "fact" if it can only be found in a limited set of sources.
  2. The content should have a clear reference in all articles that mention it (I think 5 of 6). This is not something optional but subject to fundamental Wikipedia policy (WP:REDFLAG!!!)
  3. No DYK about it before this has been cleared.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't like ALT2 too much if we don't have it for Christmas, and we will not, because DYK is kept only for six weeks. Can we look again at the other hooks? Until 2003, it was believed that Bach composed the piece for Christmas, that's why it's in the older sources. Ref #4: "about first performance s. A. Glöckner, in: BJ 2003, p. 37ff." That it was composed in July already, making it one of the early pieces of Bach's tenure in Leipzig, is a true DYK fact. Can someone word that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Tx, I withdraw my last remark, it has been settled [1] --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem appears to have returned, so changed striking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I added Francis as contributor, after a lot of source work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm back. I agree with Gerda that we should reconsider the first two hooks; I personally like ALT1, which is verified and cited inline. The original hook is AGF on foreign-language (and offline, for me) ref. However, the page now has an OR tag on the "The twelve movements of the Magnificat canticle" section, and nothing in that section is sourced. What to do now? Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • So please add at least one cite to paragraphs that don't have any. Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Francis keeps me busy elsewhere (RL also), I had no time for this and have no time right now, sorry. The movements are sourced to the score. We can drop the section completely for now and link to the D major version (the rest is still long enough for DYK)?? We can say the section is an extra service to readers?? We can say that the claims in it are evident in the score, which every reader can follow by movement and measure numbers?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Gerda, I have no expertise in this. Please do what you think is best and I'll review it again. Or come back to it when you have time (and maybe by then it will be 6 weeks to Christmas? :) ). Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I like the Christmas idea ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The article was proposed to be merged into the other Bach Magnificat article, which would normally put it on hold until the proposal to merge it into BWV 243 was settled one way or the other. I was surprised to find no sign of any discussion at the BWV 243 talk page. I have therefore been WP:BOLD and removed the merge proposal, since not even the proposer has bothered to discuss it in over half a month. Either this will hold, or the discussion will start in earnest, and this nomination will get closer to the point where it can either proceed or be rendered moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The hold is in this nomination: wait until it's only six more weeks to Christmas. Will look into it tomorrow or Tuesday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I still support the merge and am prepared to discuss it wherever deemed necessary. I took the lack of further discussion as a "no opposition to the merge" and would usually proceed with it, time permitting. Note that the merge has been discussed by me in some high end procedure, can't remember anyone opposing it in the end, however, true, there have been no further additions to that discussion on the article's talk page since. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm not sure why this nomination was moved to the Special Occasions holding area before approval. I moved it back to the nomination queue. Can we finish up soon? Yoninah (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I have also no idea. I removed the stubs for the 12 single movements of the canticle and replaced them by links to the article on the later transposition. What's missing is more detail to the other four movements, the Christmas specials which don't belong in the other article. Wait a bit, please, or look at a hook not related to Christmas (when nobody will look anyway). The fact that it was intended for Visitation (only later Christmas) is a real DYK, something that is not well known but should be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was wrong ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Article now redirects to Magnificat (Bach); if a separate article is not reestablished soon for this version, the nomination will obviously have to close. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Close nomination, or reopen/move the nomination based on or to the current article. Don't know which of these two alternative options may apply? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
See also. One person requested a merge and also performed it, now twice (see article history), without support by others, against opposes. A new experience. - My understanding of consensus is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Gerda, until this matter is settled, this nomination is on hold. Francis, this nomination should not be closed by you or by anyone until the proposed merge has been discussed and has been decided, one way or another. That discussion should only be closed by an independent party, preferably an admin, which means not by you. If this article is ultimately merged, I doubt it will be eligible for DYK under the 5x expansion rule at that point; the article would have to become a Good Article to become eligible again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Re. "this nomination should not be closed by you" - the only thing I did was commenting on BlueMoonset's "...the nomination will obviously have to close", offering alternatives if these were possible under DYK procedure.
Obviously I'm not very versed in DYK matters, what is the "5x expansion rule"?
Re. There is no consensus to have this content here, contra last reversion; only Francis is arguing for that position: see Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Position of main article content — Gerda agreed to Magnificat (Bach) being the main content page instead of Magnificat in D major, BWV 243. In fact this has nothing to do with the merge discussion (which is now at Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Merge discussion), and afaics, also of no consequence to this DYK nomination (or is it? please explain then). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Gerda was even more explicit now: "I am not against the name Magnificat (Bach) for the D major version" [3] - so I think there's no objection to revert this and this
BTW, I looked up the 5x expansion rule. Technically this series of edits I performed yesterday was expanding the content of Magnificat (Bach) over five times. I say technically, while I don't know whether such would be suffient for a DYK on that article, just saying when those looking in to this might consider this, I have no stake in thwarting whatever DYK nomination, only offering something that might be an agreeable solution that satisfies all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed; proposed merger was closed with the decision not to merge; nomination is again active. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
As we are heading towards Christmas I struck the original hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • :REVIEW COMPLETED - The following has been checked in this review by Esemono
QPQ: Santa Cruz Parish Church (Maribojoc)
Article created by Gerda Arendt on September 24, 2014 and has 24103 characters (4045 words) "readable prose size"
NPOV
Hook is interesting, short enough with Refs 5 and 6
proposed merger was closed with the decision not to merge
AGF on offline sourcing with Refs 5 and 6
Every paragraph, except the first, is sourced
Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector found no copyvio, although liberal use of quotes
GTG -- Esemono (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Striking ALT1, too many "first". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A problem for ALT2 seems to have re-emerged ("not all scholars follow Glöcker's arguments" [4], so this cannot be presented as a "fact"), see unstrike of my comment above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If we have to we can add probably, short for "according to reasoning by Andreas Glöckner in 2003 and accepted by leading scholars and data bases" (2 July 1723 without a question mark, and a comment where to find that date justified: "about first performance s. A. Glöckner, in: BJ 2003, p. 37ff."). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that musicologists argue that Bach's Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, was not first performed for Christmas, but already on the first Marian feast during Bach's tenure in Leipzig? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Christmas is coming, and the goose is getting fat the hook issue is still not settled; this can't be promoted without an approved hook. I have problems with both the wording of ALT3 ("already on" is awkward) and the deadly "musicologists argue" starting the hook. I'd like to suggest a new ALT, since ALT2 has previously identified issues (scholars don't agree):
Gerda Arendt, does this hook work? Yoninah, can you check it and give it a tick if appropriate? We're getting very close to the point where preps will need to be filled. Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
ALT4 is fine if you find something other than "debuted" and "premiered" which is not really used for church music. How about this:
ALT5: ... that Bach's Magnificat in E-flat major was performed for his first Christmas as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, but probably already months earlier for his first Marian feast there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I do think that "probably already months earlier" is awkward, though not as much so as "already on". I hope the change of ALT4 to ALT6 (more than a simple word change, but "debuted" is gone) works for you. The Christmas Day sets are already being assembled; we're out of time. I hope a reviewer stops by soon (I've called for one on WT:DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT6 works for me, - "presentation" is not exactly what you would expect at church, but matches that the "new Thomaskantor was obviously intending to impress his new employer and the congregation", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • For clarity: note that I continue my plans to merge Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a into Magnificat (Bach), per WP:CCC. Finding the local consensus to uphold that merge unconvincing, I move in line with approved consensus-seeking mechanisms that however have a time-schedule independent of DYK and liturgical calendar. Just thought I ought to let you know. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
We know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The article fulfils all DYK criteria of newness, length, neutrality and policy. The hook ALT6 has inline citations and I have tweaked the wording. I suggest that any merging of articles is left until after the hook has appeared on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a bit late in the process, but proposing:

(the ref still needs to be added to the Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a article, but I just added it to Magnificat (Bach) [5])

For ALT6 the sentence is a bit too contorted to my taste, with the somewhat loose "...there" at the end. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Gerda is keen for this to appear at Christmas. Francis does not seem to mind about this and seems willing, even after three months of discussion, to suggest another hook that is not borne out by the article as far as I can see. ALT6 is acceptable, ALT7 is not. The word "there" could be omitted in ALT6 or replaced by "in Leipzig", but we are fast running out of time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came to promote this for Christmas, but note that there is a tag in the fifth paragraph under History, and the last paragraph under both History and Dating History lack any cites. Yoninah (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I summarized and linked where the tag was. Refs: how much do you want to have taken over from Magnificat (saying that's in daily vespers), the cantatas (supporting the dates and brevity of movements), the other Magificats which have articles, etc. Both paragraphs are summaries. The article could do without the parasm, but I don't think it would be better. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • My objective is merely to facilitate this much-delayed nomination in getting into a Christmas slot. The "which" tag was added by Francis Schonken, one of the nominators, and seems unnecessary to me as a choral cantata, according to our article on the subject, is a "church cantata in which both text and music are based on one Lutheran hymn." As for your other point, I think you can see that a lot of scholarship has gone into this article and you are trying to enforce a rule designed to prevent unattributed articles going through. My inclination would be to IAR, or to combine two paragraphs into one in each case if you really want to insist on complying with this "rule". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A bit tired of trying to get a grip on Gerda's problems, when the solution is simple: merge the two articles.
  • "...with chant as the base for the music," the previous version, is unclear, and not what the cited source (Rizzuti) says
  • "... based on the German Magnificat, a paraphrase of the Magnificat by Luther," the current version, is clear but incorrect (and contradicts Rizzuti, still quoted as source for this sentence)
I covered the relation between BWV 10 and Luther's German Magnificat in Magnificat (Bach), briefly, afaik without errors, and I think the rest should go in the cantata and/or the tonus peregrinus article.
I oppose grouping of text in order to do a mere "cosmetic" update to perceived sourcing issues (I have made this clear before on this page). Readability and logical grouping of content topics should come first.
Well, the grouping in the first section of the BWV 243a is bad as it is. The history jumps, at the end of its last paragraph to reception history, as an unrelated appendage. Another (too limited) part of reception is treated after the description sections. Analogies are made with later compositions, while reliable sources have mentioned Bach's probable examples several times over the last century. All this isn't worth while to try to salvage when the coverage in Magnificat (Bach) is better, and better organized. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Francis, so far your merge idea has one supporter, yourself, you will need more. "Your" article is linked to several times, beginning in the infobox and the first paragraph of the lead - what better advertisement for your ideas could you hope for? - I am writing real letters to real people today, please don't expect too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gerda's ownership logic, which is squarely opposed to my (and Wikipedia's) views. Stop the ownership logic, please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment to promoter: Francis is clearly bent on disrupting this nomination, and should be ignored by promoters: his "Oppose" is because he wants this article merged, yet his previous merge proposal was closed as unsuccessful—opposed by many, and only supported by him. His continuation of his crusade here is inarguably inappropriate. Note: this source can be used for the Dating history's second paragraph, first half of the first sentence. I'm sure a source could easily be found for one of the works in the other paragraph, or something supporting Anglican evensong. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I added more cites to meet the DYK requirements. It's all ready to go, and I'm promoting it, too. Yoninah (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Magnificat_in_E-flat_major,_BWV_243a&oldid=1017166181"