Talk:Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 99

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 99/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) 20:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BigChrisKenney (talk · contribs) 00:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello again! I'm back for another review. Let's get this article to GA status!

Initial Review

Intro

Good

Thank you for reviewing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Head Template

The instrument list should match the instrument list in the intro. ‘Instrumental’ should be replaced with the word ‘instruments.’ If the picture ‘Nikolaikirche’ is used, there should be some explanation or some reference to the church in the article. Could be as simple as adding a few words to the intro: “…the second cycle during his tenure as Thomaskantor, at Nikolaikirche, that began in 1723.” Otherwise there isn’t anything linking the picture to the article.

You mean the infobox, I believe. The parameters are always the same in a given infobox. I am sorry that I can't give a relation to the church, - we don't know for sure if this piece was premiered there, not even if it was performed there later. But it shows the period, and chances are 50% that is was premiered there (Thomaskirche being the other 50%), and higher for performed. We don't have a more specific image related to the cantata (yet). I might look at the hymn author. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox... the name escaped me at the time of writing... I've changed the feild from 'instrumental' to 'scoring'. BigChrisKenney (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

History and words

Later in the article, you write the German text before the English translation. It should be the same here

what? --GA

I made a few edits you may wish to review.

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I was refering to these quotes: "walk in the Spirit" and "Even if every day has its particular trouble", but I think I got it wrong initially as they are quotes from the gospel, not the cantata. BigChrisKenney (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Music

Structure and scoring

Good

Table: Good

Movements

1 “…flute, oboe d'amore and violin I begins,…”

• I don’t think the violin part number needs to be mentioned.

  if you think so, - it's what the source found worth saying --GA

Consider a re-write of the second paragraph as it reads too academic.

I have no bar form at the beginning, which is nothing academic, but a simple form of most songs, even folk songs. The German terms seem to be used in English, - I made them lowercase to show that. --GA

2 Good

3 "It is another from the period.."

• Another what from the period? Another aria?

  "piece" tried --GA

The last phrase in this paragraph gives me pause. Is it needed? If so, could you elaborate in the article?

I tried --GA

4 Good

5 "...repeat of instrumental motifs from the first section and a complete repeat of the ritornello as a conclusion."

• Is "from the first section’ needed here? It was already mentioned previously in the sentence.

  good catch, no, I made it "it" --GA

6 “...is set for four parts.”

• Should this be ‘is set for voice in four parts”?

  Not really because the instruments go with the voices, which could be said if you think it's needed. (It's the rule in these cantatas, and we mention when instruments exceptionally do something else.) --GA

• I see, thank you. --BCK

Thank you for the music score and recording!

The thanks for the Lilypond rendering go to User:DanCherek. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've edited 1 and 5, please review the changes, and a thank you to User:DanCherek! BigChrisKenney (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Manuscripts and publication

I made edits you may wish to review.

Recordings

Good

Table: Good

Sources

All look good with the exception of the Bach Cantatas website and the fact that many of the sources cite the website as well. I think the sources are good enough for GA status, but will need to be replaced for FA.

I hope this helps!

Yes it does, thank you again, and I know about the BCW. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Final Assessment

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, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (references):
   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, where possible and appropriate.

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

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

BigChrisKenney (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.