Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 10:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Appears to be fairly well written but would need to be reviewed when other issues have been resolved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not assessed, although I think that the article would benefit from some samples of his music.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No apparent problems here.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All seem to be free images from commons, although I haven't checked licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Main problems picked up on are the need for improved referencing and the lead section.

Prose and MOS

I've not gone through the prose with a fine tooth, but I'll point out a few things. It appears to be fairly well written.

Lead

• To pass as a GA, the article needs to comply with the manual of style with regards to the lead section. The lead needs to adequately summarise the whole of the rest of the article, not merely act as an introduction. The article then expands upon the things mentioned in the lead. At the moment, nothing is mentioned about his life, which naturally takes up a large part of the article.
• "(often referred to simply as Bach)" - is this necessary? Is this something peculiar to Bach? It seems to me that most classical composers are often referred to by their last names.

Childhood (1685–1703)

• "He was the youngest child..." - it would be nice to have a brief mention of his other siblings. I know some of his brothers are mentioned later, but it's not clear how many children there were, or the age range.
• A small MoS detail - citations should come directly after punctuation, with no space in between

Death (1750)

• "John Taylor ... operated on Bach while visiting Leipzig in 1750" - do we know a date for this? Given that he died in July, apparently as a result of the operation, it would be nice to know how close to his death the operation was.
• "Some modern historians speculate..." - this is very vague. Which historians? And to what extent do they speculate? What evidence to they cite?

Works

• Are quite so many "see also" links necessary? I would have thought that List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach would cover it, the others being easily available from there. BWV is mentioned in the first sentence of this section and should be linked, avoiding the need to list it as "see also".

Veneration

• This section is very short, with two one-sentence paragraphs. Can any more be said?
• "Bach is commemorated as a musician in the Calendar of Saints ..." - can this be expanded on or clarified?v

Bach in popular culture

Shouldn't this be part of the legacy section?

See also

• chorale doesn't need to be here as it's already mentioned several times in the article
• Agenda (liturgy) - I'm not sure how this is relevant so should either be removed or the relevance better explained
• divine service - same thing here
• Law and Gospel - if this has significance to Bach's work, why isn't it already mentioned?

Notes

There needs to be much ore consistency, whether through the use of WP:CITET, or by hand. Also, as much information as possible should be included (authors, page numbers, publishers, dates, accessdates for web sources) for each source.

• Some page numbers are preceded by "p", some by "pp" and some be neither. (Note that "pp" refers to multiple pages, and "p" to single pages).
• Some book titles aren't italicised.
• ISBNs should be added to books where available
• There are links, for exmaple #14: "Mendel 1999, p. 43" - that presumably should take me to the relevant book in the "References" section further down, these links don't work
• There are two bare URLs which should be filled in with more information

External links

Are all these links necessary? Considering that this is on it's way to being a GA, and hopefully eventually an FA, do these links add any encyclopedic value that is missing from this article? Remember that Wikipedia is not a link directory. There is already a link to DMOZ, (which is a link directory); this should render at least some of these other ones superfluous. In the information provided can be included in Wikipedia articles, then it doesn't need to be added as an external link.

References & verifiability

This is a big problem. In addition to {{citation needed}} tags, there are large sections of the article that are uncited. This needs to be rectified in order to meet the GA requirements. A couple of links are dead. I would say that every single section needs more cites. With so many sources being used, and given the fact that an article like this receives edits from a large number of editors, it is very difficult to tell whether certain statements can be backed up by sources used near by or not. In particular, the sections "Weimar (1708–17)", "Leipzig (1723–50)", "Musical style" (as marked), "Family members", "Works", "Performances", " Veneration" and "Bach in popular culture". Just a couple of specific examples:

Childhood (1685–1703)

• "Bach was proud of his family's musical achievements..." - is this backed up by the a source, or does the source merely reprint his genealogy work?

Musical style

• "Bach's musical style arose from his extraordinary fluency..." - this s obviously quite a complementary statement and needs attributing to someone reliable
• "Bach's inner personal drive to display his musical achievements was evident in a number of ways." - this is sounding like a personal essay

Other comments

• Why are no samples of his music included? There are quite a few available at Commons. It would be good to include some in the "Works" or "Musical style" sections.

I'm afraid I'm failing the article on the basis of the citations needed throughout, as well as the lead section not meeting the manual of style.

Please note that I am not an expert on Bach or classical music and I am not a member of Wikiproject composers. I have pointed out some problems from a GA perspective, but I'm not really qualified to comment on comprehensiveness / broadness. Before nominating again I would strongly suggest a peer review and dropping a note at that Wikiproject asking someone to review the article from that perspective. Please also compare to current FAs and GAs on similar topics, for example Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Gustav Mahler.--BelovedFreak 11:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)