Template:Did you know nominations/Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 98
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PumpkinSky talk 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 98[edit]
... that Bach's cantata Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 98, begins with a chorale, but is no chorale cantata and even seems to lack the regular closing chorale?
- Reviewed: Puisi Tak Terkuburkan
- Comment: Bach cantata for Trinity 21, 13 November 2011, to appear between between 12 and 18 November. The finale movement, an aria, begins with the words of a chorale on the melody of a chorale (both words and melody different from the one in the first movement), but I can't word that.
Created/expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nom at 13:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was told that the term chorale cantata is not precisely defined, therefore suggest
- ALT1: ... that Bach's cantata Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 98, begins with the same stanza as the earlier chorale cantata, BWV 99, but continues differently and even seems to lack the regular closing chorale? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Review underway. One quick problem, a little grammatical glitch in the next to last sentence, you have "achieves to hint". You can "manage to hint" but it doesn't work with "achieve". I'd rather let you tweak that one since you know the nuance you want there. You can "achieve a hint" but you can't have "achieve + infinitive". Otherwise, the article looks good. I haven't checked any refs yet. That's next. Marrante (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The hook is cited properly. The date and length are fine, the article is properly cited, so in essence, this is ready to go. Btw, I added the name "Jacob" (for clarity) and piped the healing of the nobleman's son. It's a bit awkward there because the books of the Bible are wikilinked and then the citations are linked, so the name of the book appears twice. Somehow, I hadn't noticed this problem in previous articles of yours I've reviewed, but now it seems awkward to me, having the full title of the book named and then the citation repeating the shortened name immediately after. I'm amenable, though. Marrante (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think I see what you mean. The "problem" is the template "Sourcetext" which gives the name of the book in full but without an actual link to it (but to the source, example John 4:46–54. I can only help it if I don't use the template, but - someone tremendously helpful used it for all instances in the List, I really hesitate to change them all, and it makes sense to have them look the same both places (is also easier to just copy, I confess). What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that the duplication was caused by the template. The only things I can think of are to pipe the linked part (except that wouldn't work with all books, such as "Lamentations") or to not wikilink the book. Piping can make it read right when it's in page view, but under the hood, it looks questionable and is possibly an issue for those who feel strongly about how piping should be used. I think it should be corrected somehow, though. I think the duplication looks like a mistake — which it is, though not yours. The template should be able to toggle the name of the book on or off rather than assume how the template will be used. It may be a kind of case-by-case decision in the meantime. I lean toward using the piping solution in this article because it will then read as it should. A hidden comment can explain the problem to other editors who happen to see it in edit view and want to fix it and/or maybe a comment on the talk page, as well. Marrante (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I tried something different, please check. I could abbreviate Ephesians to Eph, if you prefer not to have it repeated, but see not much improvement in shortening John, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This article good to go, AGF for offline ref. Marrante (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)