Talk:Du Friedefürst, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 116

Du Friedefürst, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 116 has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 2, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Du Friedefürst, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 116 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 November 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Bach's chorale cantata Du Friedefürst, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 116 contains a vocal trio, rare in his cantatas?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/November.

Wikipedia

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Du Friedefürst, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 116/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mscuthbert (talk · contribs) 17:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Small changes: mvmt. 1: "and has similarity with" -> "and has some similarities with" or better "is similar to". "The treatment of the lower voices differs within the movement" -> "The treatment of the lower voices is varied within the movement." (differs usually refers to comparison with something external). Mvmt 3: "the recitative begins...as a secco" -> secco is an adjective in Italian. Say "begins...secco" or "begins...in a secco style". or repeat the noun "begins...as a secco recitative." The recit Mvmt. 4: "they illustrating the "wir" -> "they illustrate the "wir"." Fixed
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~all fine except that the quotation marks are US-double so the punctuation should go within the quotation mark.~~ -- incorrect per MOS. US English usually prefers "judgment" over "judgement." I like the citation of where the list of performances comes from (a good way to have NPOV on inclusion vs. exclusion) but not sure what "Bach" choir means or "Bach" instruments. (I get "boys" and "period." Fixed)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	(see 2b)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	good sources; I would ideally like some of the dissertations and articles about the cantatas to be included (at least the recent Wolff book), but these are definitely reliable and good sources for GA level. The Bach's Cantatas website is generally considered a RS in the field. It could be cited with a quotation to support the assertion in mvmt. 4 that trios are rare
	2c. it contains no original research.	well written.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Can you assert that the first four links at the link below. are taken from this WP entry and not vice-versa? Thanks! Confirmed by author
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	music, bio, text, performance history all included.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Broad but not overbroad. There is room for expansion in the discussion of individual movements which would be necessary for FA status, but enough for GA here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	One substantial, though easily fixed problem here: the use of Red for large ensembles and Green for historical performance is an implied imposition of judgment of Green as good and Red as Bad. Prefer two neutral colors like Blue and Green. I still would prefer not Red and Green (implications in Germany might be different from the US) but author has responded.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Copyright cleared.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Current image is relevant and sufficient. Could be improved w/, for instance, an image from the score or MS (on IMSLP in high resolution). It's controversial on WP and GA in general, but I feel like a link to a recording/performance is useful for readers if there's one of sufficient quality which seems to have been uploaded with copyright permission; but not something to hold this review to. -- These were suggestions, not holdups
	7. Overall assessment.

Btw -- in searching for recordings, I found that most of the search hits were for miscatalogued entires for "BWV Anh. 116," a minuet in G major from the Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach -- maybe it could be possible to add the "Not to be confused with..." link at the top.

Copyright report: probably taken from this article? [1]

I think this should be good to go quickly. Congrats. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond below. Thanks!

MSCuthbert asked me for a second opinion on this review. In general the level of detail, care, and specific application GA criteria of the review looks good to me. One quibble re 1b: regardless of nationality, the English Wikipedia only uses straight double quotes with punctuation outside (unless the punctuation is itself part of the quote); see MOS:QUOTEMARKS and MOS:LQ. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Michael, nice to meet you. Thank you for a detailed review with good observations. It would be easier to reply in prose if the concerns were not within a table, - perhaps compare the review of BWV 51 where talk preceded a table. Thank goodness I have no problems here. - Anh. 116: I think a hat note would be rather complicated, and readers will notice that it's the wrong place. - Copy: I copied from nowhere. I confess that I put less effort in this one than the Chrismas Cantata ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The colours: for me red is love and green is hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to go for me now. Congrats. (and thanks @David Eppstein: also. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]