Talk:Locus iste (Bruckner)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 23:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article tomorrow. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well-written?

1. "Locus iste (This place)" - I suggest re-writing this to "Locus iste (English: This place)".

done GA

2. "It was published in 1886, together with two other gradual motets" - This seems like something to mention after "composed by Anton Bruckner in 1869".

I don't think so, as it was much later. First what it is. GA

3. "Votivkapelle (votive chapel (de))" - I honestly don't think there is any need for the "(de)" link.

I had hoped to start a little article, but gave up, therefore dropped. Any idea how to say that this is not the typical (little, separate building) votive chapel, other than looking at the image? GA

4. "and composed Preiset den Herrn (Praise the Lord) on a text by Maximilian Pammesberger. It was performed on 1 May 1862 on the building site" - Is suggest connection these two sentences to something like "and composed Preiset den Herrn (Praise the Lord) on a text by Maximilian Pammesberger, which was performed on 1 May 1862 on the building site".

done, but reads a bit as if the text was performed ;) GA

5. "While some sources claim that the motet was first performed on the dedication day, 29 September 1869, together with the first performance of Bruckner's Mass in E minor, it was performed four weeks later, on 29 October, at the same location" - To avoid confusion, which also hit me, I would suggest adding "in reality" between "was" and "performed".

taken GA

6. "Bruckner dedicated the work to his student at the Vienna Conservatory, Oddo Loidol" - Wording doesn't quite flow. I suggest reformulating it to "Bruckner dedicated the work to Oddo Loidol, one his student at the Vienna Conservatory".

tried, hope it's not like the source now (sometimes that's the reason for "not flowing", - the flow being in the source) GA

7. "(Christus factus est III, WAB 11, Os justi, WAB 30 and Virga Jesse, WAB 52)" In this sentence, I don't think it's necessary to mention WAB numbers.

I don't agree because the numbers tell some readers more than the titles. Let's drop III. GA

8. Hmmm ... Why not use a table to display the poem and English translation?

9. "Iso Camartin" - So far the article has not mentioned anything about Camartin, so I suggest writing "Swiss author Iso Camartin" instead of simply "Iso Carmartin" with a link to his article to avoid confusion.

with pleasure GA

10. "Camartin notes: "das unanfechtbare Geheimnis" (the irreproachable mystery)" - The "das unanfechtbare Geheimnis" part should be in italics not quotes.

done, but how do we know now that it is a quote, only from the context? GA

11. "as "unfassbar" (incomprehensible)" - Same here.

same GA

12. "beunruhigend" (disturbing)" - And of course here as well.

same GA

Is it verifiable with no original research?

The sources used in this article checks out, but I would strongly recommend making a "Source" section, list all the books cited in this article there, and then used Harvard references.

Is it broad in its coverage?
Is it neutral?
Is it stable?

The article has quite a history of content disputes, however, they all seem to have faded in importance.

Is it illustrated?

The article is not far off from meeting the GA-criteria, but I have outlined some loopholes in my review which needs to be fixed before it can be listed, so going to put it on hold and give the GA-nominator a chance to respond. Good work people. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what I made of your good suggestions, received with thanks. Referencing: I prefer Harvard, but this article was started by a user who usually insists that I obey WP:CITEVAR and that I ask the community before changing, even for articles where I was the only editor. I asked about opposition on the talk, but will politely wait a bit. The same editor does not like an infobox, - that was about the only reason for dispute that I see. The article was fully protected until yesterday, I removed a parameter from the infobox that does't appear in the body, but think otherwise the box supplies wanted key features at a glance, especially useful for a foreign language title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know why the first recording and the approximate number of recordings have been removed. There was no opposition to put them within the "selected discography".

Why has "bar" (British English) been replaced by "measure" (American English)? "Bar" is the term preferred by Wikipedia: see Bar (music). "Measure" is redirecting to it: see Measure (music). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, the article is better now. Harv references was, at the end of the day, a suggestion and after what you told me about WP:CITEVAR, I don't think it's such a big deal. Regarding point 3, I think the image is more than fine and don't think you should go into any further detail about it. Regarding point 4, I think the reader will understand the true meaning. Regarding point 10, I actually meant that the German wording should be in italics and also quotes like this: "Camartin notes: "das unanfechtbare Geheimnis". And Meneerke bloem, I have restored the part you mentioned in question. With these improvements and discussions I don't see any reason not to pass it. Excellent job. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]