Talk:Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 08:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A nice read and another worthy addition to Wikipedia's coverage of the complete works of Bach.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
As ever, my non-musician's brain does struggle a bit with the terminology in this sort of article, but the prose is readable and well-laid out, and the terms a tyro might need are helpfully linked.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I was afraid that this might come up - while the discussion at RSN didn't really reach a conclusion, I'm of the opinion that the Bach Cantata's website really shouldn't be linked as an EL (I realise it's not being used as a reference). Until the copyright status of the content there is clarified, WP:ELNEVER would apply. I'm aware that a number of FAs use this site, but I am not comfortable passing an artice for GA with a potential copyright-violating link in the External Links section.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
In-depth without being too technical. Interesting to learn the origin of Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, one of my favourite pieces of music.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Easy to keep an article stable when it has only one editor!
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images are both PD and suitably tagged on Commons, and seem like appropriate additions. A copy of part of the score would be nice, but if one existed I suspect you would already have put it in.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
All seems well but for the Bach Cantatas website. Closed per comments below.

Thank you for the review. The discussion on WP:RSN was archived with no consequences. History of this article (and please compare BWV 4, look for "Thoughts" on the talk page):

It was created in 2006 with one reference, and expanded a bit by 2010, when external links were added, including Bach Cantatas Website, - readers of this article are used to seeing this most detailed and at the same time most comprehensive site on the topic. We would cause them inconvenience if we would take it away here, while other quality articles in English have it, and the translations of this article to other languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate to dig in my heels here, but as long as there is doubt over the copyright status of the website, it's really not an appropriate EL for a GA. I'm not about to call for a review of all the other GA/FAs that use it, but I certainly don't think we should be promoting any more GAs with potential copyvio ELs. Much as I dislike being hard-assed about such things, until the link is removed or some sort of community discussion establishes that it's safe to link to, I'm not comfortable pushing this to GA status. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time for this. Close please. 2 July is over anyway. You may want to consider that in the RSN discussion, even the one (and only) who believes in a copyright violation thinks the site is safe to be used as a reference for hymns. You may also browse once more the long talk (and archive) of Christ lag in Todes Banden, but only if you are unafraid. Please absolutely read the last chapter, Thoughts, raising the question "Can we agree?". - My heart and mouth and dead and life is with the reader ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus clausum, etc.

As Leipzig observed tempus clausum (time of silence) during Advent, allowing cantata music only on the first Sunday...

Surely the first? not the third, Gaudete?--2001:A61:20CD:9701:54A:D81D:8703:AC46 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, and this belongs on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]