Talk:Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I'll review this - comments later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of unsourced ends of paragraphs, I've tagged these.

"where he worked for the court of Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, in 1718 as a congratulatory cantata for New Year's Day of 1719" - this sentence doesn't seem to make sense; it implies that Bach worked as a congratulatory antata. Maybe it should be split into two sentences?

More later.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put clause in parentheses for clarity. Jmar67 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie and John, thank you!

The article is at a strange state, was developed by several users, and is supposed to be FA soon, for its 300th anniversary. Sorry for being late. Referencing is tricky, because I tried to avoid the so far mostly used ref, Julian Mincham (now external links), because I know it will not pass the critical look of the FA-people. Will do what I can to please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The music remained in manuscript form" - what other form would it be in? I'm confused.

It could have been printed, but the list of works by Bach printed during his lifetime is short. One of the sentences I found and didn't have the heart to through out ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed it to clarify that - can you double check that's correct? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up the other issues I spotted during the review directly; I think they're all pretty minor things. I don't see an issue with passing this, unless Jmar67 has any other comments. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with most things but not the revert ("weirdness") of first saying that it's a work by Bach, before a load of German, a longish translation and two catalogue numbers, and their refs. Compare Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, a FA which was TFA this year. The BWV numbers got more complicated this year, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "weirdness" was because I had the article open in two windows and edited the wrong one. As it now stands, we've got "Title (translation) (notes) is an 'x' by 'y','z'", which is generally what you want as the lead sentence - to give a brief description of what the whole article is about. I just looked at the last five articles I happened to edit (Topsy Kim, Pet Shop Boys, Camden Town tube station, Severn Bridge and Blackpool Illuminations), and they all follow this pattern. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only the examples don't begin with something long in German, followed by a long translation, and some abbreviated things BWV (one - with a link - sending you to one of the longest articles we have, instead of just explaining the abbr) before we FINALLY get to know it's by Bach. - Sure, in 95% of composition aricles I follow the normal pattern. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's ask @Jmar67: - do you prefer the opening sentence like this or the opening sentence like this? Then we'll take whatever he says as consensus and run with that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that puts a burden on John? - I recall this (2017), can't find where Francis introduced that, but came to like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! I lean toward having the page name first, but it is not that critical. See my other changes for things I thought were important for flow. Jmar67 (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the better flow! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Well, I think arguments about what should come first can come outside the scope of the GA criteria, so I'll pass the review now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.