Talk:Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121

References

A general question but it happened here. Nikkimaria, you reverted the Harvard referencing which is used in all higher quality articles on Bach's cantatas. I would like to improve this one to GA status for a DYK on 26 Dec, the 300th anniversary (and know that it's late). Harvard was used because it provides an elegant way to reference different pages from the same source with a direct link to those pages, - that information and helpful feature is now lost. Take Dürr/Jones: there will be references to pages 106, 110, 110-11, 112 and 113, probably more if comparing to other cantatas for the same occasion. They would all need individual definitions using the present system if we want to establish the same comfort for the readers. Consider restoring, please. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

ps: for clarity: I planned - of course - to transform all references to Harvard. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that you've implemented {{rp}}, which seems like a good solution for page numbers - they aren't strictly necessary given the short page range, but they can include direct links if so desired. See explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, for copy-editing and for pointing this out which I hadn't seen. Why, however, do you think references are more desirable within the prose? I see much more clarity in having them collected in a sorted system. - Many features of accessibility are not strictly necessary, but why would I not offer precise pages with a quick link instead of having the reader turn pages from 110 to 106? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried to link to page 106 in the way described, {{rp|106|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m9JuwslMcq4C&pg=PA106}}, but it doesn't work for me. I must be blind for something. I notice that in the linked discussion, there's also a user preferring {{sfn}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be strong enough sourcing to support an article on the concept of access friction, so to summarize: not all accessibility measures work the same for everyone, and sometimes different people in different circumstances have different needs that come into conflict. For example, GBooks pagelinks are variable based on factors like your geography or access history, so some users will be frustrated by encountering links that go to blank/different pages, even as others have the convenience of not needing to turn pages. Similarly editors may find one or another formatting of reference easier or more challenging to work with - CITEVAR exists as a means to promote coexistence. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) 21:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

This review will commence today, although I will not be finished until tomorrow. Apologies for taking a while, I've been very busy. --K. Peake 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Infobox looks good!
• The mention of it being part of his Chorale cantata cycle should only be in the second para; the first one should change this sentence to mentioning the hymn as a German translation after its title
• "Christum wir sollen loben schon is part of" → "The cantata is part of" and move this to being in the first paragraph since it is too short currently
• "In the format of this cycle," → "In the format of Bach's second cycle," as this can start the second para
• Merge the third para with the second one from the outer movements sentence onwards

  I hope I got what you meant, please check. I left "format of this cycle", though. After just having introduced its two names, I think there's no need to repeat one of them.

  Talking about format: I made some changes to make this article consistent with the others:

  1. convert references to sfn
  2. give the sections in Movements headers of just the movement number
  3. convert the list of recordings to a table

  Nikkimaria, who contributed substantially to the article more than 10 years ago, reverted the sfn references and the subheaders, and changed the format of the table in appearance both in article and in edit mode. I like that in other articles the condutcor / choir / ensemble appear together as a team, while now the conductor is listed separately (also creating whitespace). I like in edit mode to supply each parameter in a new line. What do you think about the changes that came without explanation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think with the changes having come from the experienced editor, some of these are fine to leave due to stylistic preferences. One thing from here I missed however, where is the canta sourced as being his second cycle as Thomaskantor? --K. Peake 09:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've added a citation confirming that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

To explain: (1) changing referencing format to match other articles is generally not appropriate; (2) as per MOS:OVERSECTION, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings"; (3) having specific datapoints associated with specific headers rather than combined is generally better for accessibility, although combining is unavoidable for the ensembles since in some cases there is only a single link. On my screen the current design also has less whitespace; where are you seeing more on yours? That is probably something that could be adjusted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

History and words

• Good

Music

Structure and scoring

• Good

Movements

• I would suggest merging the first para with the second one since not only is this one sentence, it also leads into further information about where the canta came from

  I moved the first para, about the hymn tune, above. In reply to Nikkimaria (above), I think that the movement numbers would improve clarity, and only two of six are short (= 2 sentences). They would also ease later editing: a user wanting to change something in one movement would have a hard time finding the spot in the large section. --GA

• Someone editing the section can be guided by the anchors. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• "It begins in" → "The motet begins in"

  done using "movement" --GA

• The symmetrical scheme part is not sourced, unless I'm missing something?

  in the source, it's called "conventional scheme", - perhaps replaced (not by me) to avoid copyvio --GA

• "John the Baptist's leaping in his" → shouldn't you use something like "leaping into his" without the possessive language too here?

  removed two possessives --GA

• Sixth para looks good!
• "illuminating the early-church" shouldn't you start this as a new sentence with "This illuminates..." to avoid a run-on here?

  sentences split --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Manuscripts and publications

• Good

Recordings

• Per MOS:TABLECAPTION, shouldn't there be a title here?

  So I thought, and it was there until Nikkimaria removed that also (same for the table of movements, btw). As she structured the table differently, I can't simply restore the former version.

  About the structure, in reply to Nikki's question above: On my screen, I see (generally) four lines for each entry, because of the four soloists. With the grouping of conductor / choir / ensemble together, in a template created by RexxS for the purpose, the group often takes a similar space in one column. With the conductor split off, we get two columns instead. In the conductor column, I see the name sometimes in one line, resulting in 3 empty lines, or split in two (which I find undesirable) which still leaves two empty lines. Also: more columns make it harder to look at on mobile devices. Finally: besides all this, I like the conductor as part of a team, not singled out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've added a caption and reorganized the table. The table of movements already has a caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for combining conductors and ensembles. You placed the conductor below the ensembles, preceded by "conducted by" for every single one, and gave the column the title "Ensemble(s)". I replaced the long phrase by our usual abbreviation "cond." and made the header "Ensembles, conductor".

  Questions:

  1. My understanding is that the header is not for the article where it is redundant (especially "Recordings", after the Section header was Recordings and the only sentence between that header and the table speaks of the table of recordings) but for statistics of tables. I may be wrong. In other articles, the cantata title is repeated in that title.
  2. @Nikkimaria: Why would you place the conductors, for whom these recordings are known, at the end?
  3. @N.: Why do you use any repetitive description in every entry of a table? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
     • The redundancy is why I did not initially include a caption. I don't know what you mean by "statistics of tables", but would have no objection to re-removing.
     • You suggested that the columns should be combined because the conductor is "part of a team, not singled out". In that model the conductor is part of the ensemble. The inclusion of the description helps orient the reader to which of the foreign-language things listed is a person rather than an ensemble, without needing to click through.

  I confess that I don't quite understand, - probably because of my English. I suggest that we discuss the format of the table on the talk page. The format we have now is acceptable to me. What I still don't understand is why you saw any need to change what was there. The established format illustrates the "team" sufficiently, imho, - see BWV 91#Recordings, - that article became GA yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Notes

• Good

References

• Copyvio score looks good at 38.7%; the quote matches are mostly for titles so no problem here!
• Cite Bach Digital as publisher instead on ref 2
• Wikilink University of Alberta on ref 7
• Allmusic → AllMusic with the wikilink on ref 10
• Add Emmanuel Music as publisher with the wikilink on ref 11

  I changed the four refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

External links

• Good

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; came through this quickly! --K. Peake 09:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I did what I could, please check.

  I suggest that I restore the table of recordings to the format used in all other Bach cantatas, per my explanations. Do you agree?

  I'd leave the references as they are, - we have already a discussion on the talk, and you seem not to care. Do you agree? I was trained to use a defined list of references with Franz Kafka (in 2012) and the articles by Jerome Kohl (such as Stockhausen), and try to use it for all articles of higher quality as simply better, but am willing to compromise.

  What do you think about the subheaders for the movements? I am willing to live without them, but find it a needlessly unstructured section that way, with links not really transparent from the table of movements to the movements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt Great work on this and I'm fine with the table captions using the title or not this is not a matter of dispute for me, although I do disagree with the hymn sub-section per it being overly short - maybe merge with song structure info and don't have this as a sub-section of music, only have movements as a sub? --K. Peake 08:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  As I said I can live without movement subheaders. There was one other GA I recall with Nikkimaria as a principal author. FAs though, and most GAs, do have them. I still have the questions to her regarding the placement of the conductor, because I really would like to understand. They could go to the talk page, as unrelated to GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll move the hymn information. It could become a subsection again when expanded, but four three other cantatas for the feast days are waiting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I nominated this for DYK, hoping to see an entry on 26 December. What is missing, K. Peake? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Martin Luther in 1529

• ... that on 26 December 1724, Bach led the first performance of Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121, for the second day of Christmas, based on a hymn that Luther (pictured) had derived in 1524 from an early Latin hymn? Source: several
  • Reviewed: Lilium lophophorum
  • Comment: Obviously for 26 December. Obviously too long, please help. It would be easy to drop "for the second day of Christmas", but I'm not sure people know enough about German tradition to immediately know that. (In Leipzig at Bach's time, they had three days of Christmas.) Not so easy to point at a 500th and a 300th "birthday" in one hook. The article is close to being GA, but not quite there, - I got nervous.

Improved to Good Article status by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Nikkimaria (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 2128 past nominations.

Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC).

• Hi, I'll be reviewing this!

General eligibility:

• New enough: - ?
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - ?
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is not yet a GA, and as such is ineligible, although is good spirit I'll keep it open till it (hopefully) passes. Article is long enough, the picture is PD and clear, although I do have a concern with the hook and WP:DYKINT, I'm confused by "second day of Christmas". It seems too "topic-specifc", but that's just my opnion. May I suggest ALT0a: "...that Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121 is based on Martin Luther's (pictured) Christum wir sollen loben schon, which in turn is based on the 5th-century A solis ortus cardine?" I don't think length is that much of a concern. Pinging @Gerda Arendt: and @Nikkimaria:. :) E_F⁵ 16:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing, but I wonder why you didn't wait a bit. (I wanted to get the nomination done, because an approval could come while I sleep, for example.) Thank you for the ALT but I think to repeat the title (cantata and hymn) is the most boring thing we can do. I believe that for the general reader, the 300 years on the very day are of more interest, don't you think so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)