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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Normally previous reviewers should not nominate GANs but after seeing your discussion with the reviewer and the amount you contributed to this afterwards, I believe the nomination is definitely acceptable and I will start the review today or tomorrow. --K. Peake 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, looking forward to your review. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

• Infobox looks good!
• Target BWV to Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis
• "in eleven movements" → "in 11 movements" per MOS:NUM
• "of which it contains," → "of which the motet contains,"
• "from the Epistle to the Romans." → "from the New Testament's sixth book, the Epistle to the Romans." with the wikilink
• Target Biblical to the Bible
• The attention to detail part is not mentioned in the body, even though it is that he set them both
• Target chorale tune to Lutheran chorale
• "which only paraphrases" → "that only paraphrases" but this does not appear to be sourced in the body
• "five voices, and two" → "five voices and two"
• The word painting does not appear to be mentioned as having the intensifying purpose, unless I missed something?
• "on 18 July 1723," → "during July 1723," though this is only sourced for one scholar
• "were included in" → "are included in"
• "one of the eleven movements" → "one of the 11 movements"
• "hymn text and Bible text, it" → "hymn and Bible text, the motet"
• Keep the greatest motets info here but also write it out in the body using the ref, as they are not supposed to be in the lead

I applied the above suggestions, apart from,

• 3rd and 14th bullets (eleven → 11): no, "eleven" is perfectly all-right for MOS:NUM, see second bullet of the MOS:NUMERAL section of that guideline, "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words ...": the expression as a word seems clearer to me, in the context.
• 7th bullet: removed "with attention to dramatic detail" from the intro: it is explained in detail in the body (e.g. "... dramatic word painting ..."; "... dramatic illustration ..."; "... intensify the gesture dramatically ..."; "... music of an unusual dramatic range ..."), but that seems difficult to summarize in a short phrase in the intro when the exact same wording has to be used in the body.
• 8th bullet: I addressed this a bit differently, the link now appearing a bit further in the sentence (well, chorale harmonization, which is a redirect to Lutheran chorale).
• 9th bullet: re. which vs. that, see WP:SNODGRASS (14th bullet of "Perennial GUHs" section), but I applied your recommendation; the "paraphrase" word now returns in the description of the 5th movement so that it is clearer what this refers to.
• 11th bullet: "intensify" and "word painting" now appear in a single sentence in the body of the article (description of the 7th movement).
• 12th bullet: did it a bit differently, hope you like it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I do; the issue here was with too much detail for the lead by mentioning the exact date. Also, I removed the unsigned template because I purposefully did not sign there due to it only being the end of a review sub-section. --K. Peake 13:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 15th bullet: did it, but rephrased the end of the sentence a bit, in order to avoid repeating the word "motet" in the same half sentence.

Thanks for the suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I don't like WP:INTERLEAVING, including in GAN type of reviews. The relevant guideline is clear (see link in previous sentence): it shouldn't be done, and no exception for GAN reviews or the like is mentioned. I'd like this GAN report to be easily intelligible for whoever wants to read it (including myself in a few months' time) without having to wonder every few paragraphs who was replying to whom. For that reason I inserted a signature before my reply began (which I'd like to see restored), and now a copy of mine before your interleaving comment begins. In future: please don't insert replies before my signature, in text I wrote, and sign blocks of text (at least one signature per section) where you think my replies can be inserted without interleaving text you wrote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken I apologize for violating that WP guideline, but at the same time you needn't put the unsigned comment template at the end of every sub-section I have written, as it is obvious in a review that the first comments are by the reviewer... --K. Peake 16:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

• Unless I missed something from the source, the 17th century part is not mentioned
• "In that context," → "In this context," but this sentence does not appear to be backed up; the same applies to the instrumental accompaniment sentence, etc. and I would like to say since it's often noticeable I won't go over every instance, but is it me not accessing properly or a real source issue?
• Wikilink E minor
• "In Bach's time," → "In Johann Sebastian Bach's time," due to this being after you mentioned another person of the family and I can see this part is backed up by the source!
• The "weddings and funerals" part is not sourced, only the latter of the two events
• Target BMV 118 to O Jesu Christ, meins Lebens Licht, BWV 118
• Target 225–231 to List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach
• Target 1083 to Tilge, Höchster, meine Sünden, BWV 1083
• "in that category." → "in the category."
• "five-part choir: most of" → "five-part choir; most of"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Peake (talk • contribs)

Regarding the first two points: what wasn't explicitly referenced yet in the first paragraph of the "History" section, is some "general knowledge" about the Altbachisches Archiv (ABA), its music and its composers. As that is apparently no WP:BLUE matter I now expanded the Spitta reference at the end of the paragraph with a chapter from its first volume, which has a general introduction about the ABA motets and its composers. Think I handled the other points of this block too (including adding a reference for the wedding & funeral cantatas). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epistle text and chorale

• Img looks good!
• "Johann Franck, and Bible verses" → "Johann Franck and Bible verses" with the wikilink
• Wikilink stanzas
• "of its last stanza," → "of its final stanza," to avoid repetitive wording
• Identify Vopelius by his full name
• [16][18][17] should be put in numerical order
• Does the Gospel need capitalisation?
• Target Jesus Christ to Jesus, but the majority of this sentence does not appear to be backed up by the source

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Peake (talk • contribs)

Re. 4th bullet, I left out Vopelius altogether: the publication is fully identified by its title.

Re. 7th bullet: here, yes (according to my OED), while it refers to the New Testament.

Re. 8th bullet: I cut out the part that somehow appeared in the introduction of the source (speaking about Bach's motets in general), but was not specifically about the Gospel text used in BWV 227. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time of origin

• "difficult to date, and" → "difficult to date and"
• Remove the early biographer introduction since we already know who Spitta is from earlier
• Thomaskantor should not be italicised
• "is documented for" → "was documented for"
• "but that the date was still" → "but the date has still been"
• [25] should solely be at the end of the last two sentences, as they finish the para (but keep before [26] since that's two refs)
• "Looking at the four-part settings..." this sentence is too long and feels like a run-on, maybe try to separate for the two different parts?
• "but the education" → "but rather the education"
• Are you sure "as also" is the correct phrasing here, or maybe something like "similarly to" isn't better?
• "of the motet show" → "of Jesu, meine Freude show" to be specific
• "from the motet:" → "from the motet;"

[I prefer a signature here, for clarity]

Re. 7th to 9th bullet: rejigged (and split) a bit more than that, to avoid convoluted phrasings. Rest as you suggested. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and scoring

• "The motet is structured" → "Jesu, meine Freude is structured"
• "with text alternating" → "with text alternating between"
• Comma is not needed after tenor
• "are the same four-part setting" → "have the same four-part setting"
• Target fugal writing to Fugue
• "are both trios," → "are both trios;"

Movements

• "the movement number is" → "each movement number is"

1

• [35] should be solely at the end of the sentence between [14] and [36]
• "This and most other movements" what does "this" mean? Either mention the beginning or the stanza at the start of this sentence, plus E minor does not appear to be backed up by [14].
• [30] should be solely at the end of the para, as it is used for both the penultimate and final sentences

2

• "from the Epistle to the Romans with" → "from the Epistle with" because you have abbreviated it as this on the other occasions
• "that will be repeated" → "that is repeated"
• "Johann Christoph Bach and Johann Michael Bach." → "Johann Christoph and Johann Michael Bach." per MOS:SAMESURNAME, with the target

3

• Img looks good, but are you sure you can't add some info in prose about the ending of the movement?

4

• Wikilink G major

5

• Shouldn't the img be on the left instead, as one earlier in this section is aligned to the right? Also, wikilink soprano.
• [43][30] put in numerical order
• [30] should solely be at the end of the sentence, as there is no point invoking it twice in the same one

6

• "the tenor begins with a" → "the tenor starts with a" to avoid repetitive wording
• [38] should be solely at the end of the sentence since there is only one other ref here so no need to invoke twice
• "and then both combined" → "before both of them combined"
• Why is there no ref at the end of the para?

7

• Good

8

• "Bach composed a" → "Johann Sebastian Bach composed a" since the last Bach mentioned was not him
• Wikilink C major

9

• For consistency, should you use Christ or Jesus here – I'm split because quotes are saying Christ but you wrote Jesus in prose previously?
• "used in this movement" → "used in the movement"

10

• Good

11

• "now with the text of" → "though it features the text of"
• "the beginning, on" → "the beginning on"

Reception

• The opening sentence is too wordy with "structure" being repeated; try rewording to something like "has been regarded as unique due to its" while removing structure from before the title, maybe?
• Remove excess full-stop after [3]
• The "even illustrating single words" part does not appear to be sourced

18th and 19th centuries

• "of that movement." → "of the movement."
• Target 1780s edition of Bach's four-part chorales to 18th-century prints of Bach's four-part chorales#Chorales published by Breitkopf
• "1803, in the second volume" → "1803 for the second volume"
• "in volume 39 of" → "for volume 39 of"
• Target Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe to Bach Gesellschaft and are you sure it should be italicised?

20th and 21st centuries

• Target Bach Choir to The Bach Choir
• "made the first recording of it," → "made the first recording of Jesu, meine Freude,"
• Merge the above sentence with the para below it, as one sentence is not enough for a para
• "and again in 2003," → "and published again in 2003,"
• "continuo realisation, and/or a" → "continuo realisation and/or a"
• Lowercase the Sixteen per MOS:THEMUSIC
• Why is there a full-stop after the last bullet point but none of the others?

References

• Copyvio score looks too high at 66.8%; you could cut down on quoting to fix that, see WP:OVERQUOTE to understand
• Ref 1 should not cite 1: Motetten und Chorlieder after Schneider 1935, as the latter leads to 1: already
• Why are the URLs for refs 6 and 8 cited here when you have all of the others in sources?

Cited sources

• For consistency with date formatting, shouldn't you change the ones like 2019-05-25?
• Target Courier Corporation to Dover Publications
• Target Novello & Co to Wise Music Group
• Target Carus to Carus-Verlag
• Wikilink BBC Music Magazine
• Target S2CID to Semantic Scholar
• Fix MOS:QWQ issues with the Emmanuel Music source, plus shouldn't you cite as publisher instead?
• Target J. B. Metzler to Springer Nature
• Wikilink Los Angeles Master Chorale, plus shouldn't this and the following two sources cite publisher instead?

External links

• Are you sure the Johann Gottfried Schicht one doesn't belong in a further reading section instead?
• The MP3 link does not work for me

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; good job on you responding as the review was ongoing and you needn't pointed out any unsigned comments when I'm signing off here at the end of my review! --K. Peake 20:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If I may comment (otherwise mostly uninvolved, Francis seems to be doing a good job here) - regarding the 'copyvio' issue: the pages with the highest match are those which cite the text of the chorale (which is cited both verbatim in the original long out of copyright German variant, and in short translated fragments where necessary: that would certainly fall under fair use [and professional translations likely don't have that much variability: there's only so many ways to translate "Jesu meine Freude" into English...]). If you look at the comparisons that should be obvious enough. Don't think it's much of an issue, although replacing the bible translations with the KJV has brought it down to 53%. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Now, that is in addition to what I already said below about References, first bullet, I also replaced most of Dellal's translations of hymn stanza incipits by Jacobi's (not under copyright), which got the score further down, below 50%. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The metrical translation has some obvious issues of departing far from the actual German meaning. I've corrected some with my own attempt: per WP:THESKYISBLUE, not everything requires a reference, and translations are not that far off from being strikingly obvious (a small dose of creative liberty aside), so I've fixed that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Being out of copyright is one quality, but representing what Bach set to music seems more important. "Weg, weg" means "Away, away", for example. There is no way to say "Trotz" - in sharpness and brevity - in English. "Weicht, ihr Trauergeister" is difficult. Erda's "Weiche, Wotan, weiche" from the Ring comes to mind, it's a poetic and strong way to say "go away" (or a frequently used four-letter expression), - I don't know a good equivalent. "Trauer" is "mourning", "Trauerfeier" what would be "memorial service", - I am not sure if "mournful spirits" gets it, sounding a bit like outside creatures, while I always understood that it's one's own spirits that should rise beyond mourning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For "weicht", I have this which in the only relevant meaning is "Give way"; and this which for the verb in the infinitive gives "fliehen" as a synonym. Duden has "sich von jemandem, etwas entfernen; weggehen" (to move away from someone/something; to go away). But with the context of the stanza "Give way" (for my master of joy, Jesus) seems most accurate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments (afaik I sorted the rest as suggested):

• Re. (movement) 1, second bullet: "this" means the (first) movement: rephrased & reference added.
• Re. (movement) 3, image: this is the end of the seventh movement of BWV 81. The image was likely chosen for being a setting of the Jesu, meine Freude chorale melody and ending on a Picardy third (the third movement of BWV 227 also ends on a Picardy third), but otherwise unrelated to the motet. I removed the image for not being an illustration of the third movement of BWV 227.
• Re. (movement) 5, first bullet: kept the image on the right (see above: preceding image removed).
• Re. (movement) 6, second and fourth bullet: moved all refs to the end of the sentence, without doubling any of them.
• Re. (movement) 6, third bullet: wrote "before both of them are combined"
• Re. (movement) 8, first bullet: this was about the 9th movement, right?
• Re. (movement) 9, first bullet: "Christ", "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" are all used throughout the article, like also "melody" and "tune" are both used throughout, for variation (rather than always using the same expression when there are synonyms). This has nothing to do with consistency.
• Re. (movement) 11, first bullet: rephrased somewhat differently.
• Re. 18th and 19th centuries, 5th bullet: no, some day there might be a separate page for the edition (that is separate from the society's page)
• Re. References, first bullet (copyvio score): replaced Dellal's Bible translations by KJV Bible translations (not copyrighted), which should solve the issue.
• Re. References, second bullet (Vol. 1 of Schneider): no, the full citation names both Vol. 1 (Motetten und Chorlieder) and Vol. 2 (Kantaten), while the first reference is only about the first of these volumes.
• Re. References, third bullet (link in ref in only two cases): because these two sources have no author name, which makes them a little less suitable for a short reference linking to a full citation. But if you think I should do that, I could convert them to ((sfn)) nonetheless, with the full reference in the sources list.
• Re. Cited sources, bullets 2–4 and 8: not re-targeted: afaik, these are the names of the publishers as used in the actual publications. Since mergers, and then new acquisitions a few years later make affiliations of publishers (or: publisher brands) change every now and then (followed by regroupings in Wikipedia articles), I suppose it is best to keep the links to the actual names (whatever the redirect does in the future). Afaik, there is also no style recommendation against redirect links.
• Re. Cited sources, bullet 6 (S2CID link): no can do. I opposed this when I learned this was hard-coded into the cite templates. If you want to see this changed: Help talk:Citation Style 1 is the place to raise the issue.
• Re. Cited sources, bullet 9 (website or publisher?) – you tell me... I've seen Wikipedia editors give so many incompatible theories about this that I stopped to care: whatever works for you works for me too.
• Re. External links, bullet 1: this is a music score (so not so much "reading", which would mostly be understood as referring to prose), don't know whether for such non-text outlier a separate section should be started? But if you think it is worth it, I will do.
• Re. External links, bullet 2 (MP3): I had no problem rendering it (checked again). Should I ask at WP:VPT?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Francis Schonken Hello, I do fully congratulate you on your job responding but I do have some things to tell you in reply. It is good to see that you have gone over reasoning for changes in thorough detail above, but the first bullet for movement 8 was about 9 and I made a mistake, the Jesus/Christ thing is not really an issue since the surname policy shouldn't apply to such a well-known figure. Moving on to the technical stuff instead of prose, copyvio is fine, the 1: Motetten und Chorlieder part leads to the exact same URL if I click on the loc or navigate to the source under Schneider 1935, the sources can stay in ref format then if the difference is that they lack any authors, usually sources are cited as publisher if they aren't italicised but it's sometimes different when you are using offline ones so maybe you don't have to change this that's why I asked the question, you needn't move the penultimate external link but maybe add the link first and then put by Johann Gottfried Schicht (ed.) afterwards and finally, my comment about the MP3 link not working was more so an indication of whether the file is safe or not; plus are you sure it's not a copyright violation too? --K. Peake 10:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Re. Schneider 1935: removed the external link from the loc, while it doubled the first external link in the full reference.

  Re. refs without full source: both 6th and 8th references now converted to short + full format.

  Re. Schicht: converted to ref, and used as such in the body of the article, so no longer listed in the last section of the article.

  Re. MP3: it is a recording of a performance by the Umeå Academic Choir on the website of the Umeå Academic Choir, which is hosted on the Umeå University website. Tried to make that a bit clearer in the external links entry. Anyway, copyvio-wise there should be no problem whatsoever.

  @Kyle Peake: still anything I should do or look into before you can finalize your review? Thanks for your clear analysis above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Francis Schonken: I have done one last read through and from what I can see, there are no remaining issues (even though I did some brief fixes earlier that were for errors which did not exist when I started the review). ✓ Pass now, even though I congratulate your speedy response I am actually more impressed by how thorough you have been in your comments; maybe that's where I got my clear analysis from in the last comments! --K. Peake 11:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]