Talk:Magnificat (Rutter)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magnificat (Rutter)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. Full disclosure: I have collaborated with the nominator on Messiah (Handel) but I think I am impartial enough to do a reviewer's job here. Tim riley talk 19:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've amended a few typos, but please check to see you're happy with my changes. Other possible spelling points:

• "alterning" – "alternating"?
• "ondulating" – "undulating"?

Tim riley talk 14:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, all good changes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The article needs more citations in the Movements section. Mostly, as long as the text simply describes what is in the score, the citations can be just be the page ranges of the published score for each movement, added at the end of each paragraph, but there are a few observations (shrewd and correct, I have no doubt) that are WP:OR unless backed by a citation:

• "While Bach structured the first verses of the canticle…"
• "reminiscent of Bach's treatment of the same text"
• "with dotted rhythms reminiscent of the French overture"

Tim riley talk 22:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

How much copying references from other articles (Overture, BWV 243a) is needed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Each statement that gives an opinion or comparison, rather than a plain description of what is in the score, needs a citation to some published WP:RS opinion. What is in other WP articles such as BWV 243a is immaterial for this article, which must stand alone with its own references. Copy and paste refs from other articles, by all means, but you must ensure that all statements of opinion here are duly cited. Tim riley talk 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that much I knew. How do I cite that the a French Ouverture is characterised by slow dotted rhythms (or a waltz by a triple meter)? I don't believe that saying the same feature appears here is an opinion. - How do I cite that in Bach's Magnificat, each verse is handled in at least one movement? Cite that score also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• For the structure of the Bach score, yes, a citation to that score would be fine.
• For the "reminiscent of…" phrase, if you change it to "similar to…" and again cite the Bach score, that will change a matter of opinion into a verifiable statement of fact.
• For the French overture I consulted George Gow Waterman and James R. Anthony. "French overture." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 4 Oct. 2014. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/10210, which states, "The form combines a slow opening, marked by stately dotted rhythms and suspensions, with a lively fugal second section." I'd have added that reference for you, but I don't know sfn notes are done. This or any other WP:RS to a description of the genre will be fine here. I don't think "reminiscent" will quite do. It is too personal a word – what makes you reminisce may not make me do so – and "on the lines of" or something like that would be safer. Tim riley talk 08:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Taken. I sourced the Bach structure to the free scores (which contain the manuscript). For the "Omnes", I looked at the Bach Ausgabe and found it (p 31), but can't read the old keys, so took the paper vocal score I actually looked at. What do you think? I hope I left my personal evalution behind ;) - Learning: I thought until you taught me that "reminds me of" means personal memory (erinnert mich an) while "is reminiscent of" would be an impersonal "erinnert an", - is there a term for that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Reminiscent" is a tricky word. It has the overtone of "It reminds me of x and I assume everyone agrees with me" (even if nobody actually does agree) and so is somewhere between "erinnert mich an" and "erinnert an". That's the last of my quibbles, except to point out that the Manual of Style asks for quotations in lead sections to have citations. I suppose this must apply even though you've cited them in the main text. A pity, but that seems to be the WP style. That apart:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A pleasure to read and a pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 11:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It was a pleasure to sing, 2006 and yesterday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)