|
I'd suggest to return to the earlier article structure, which was more in line with project guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure). Example: if Johann Arndt's writings were an influence on the genesis of the hymn text, then these should be mentioned in the "history" or "context" section, such section evidently preceding the detailed description of the content of the hymn, etc. Current article structure rather reminds me of a Christian church service: readings (i.e. sacred text) early on in the proceedings, which are then later followed by extensive explanations on context and meaning of that scripture. Such structure has some advantages: it makes at least a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's readership feel at home. Yet, this article of course aims at a broader readership than those who are familiar with such Christian context. Imagine another kind of reader, say, e.g., a Japanese reader from a non-Christian denomination. In Japan the sun has completely different connotations (it is a symbol for the country etc.) – thus, for such reader, explaining the symbolism as it is for this hymn makes of course sense before presenting the text of the hymn. Keeping to a more chronological account (as intended by project guidance) has other advantages. E.g., for editors. Suppose an editor comes across a source which gives more explanation on the genesis of the hymn: it would be rather helpful for such editor, if they want to bring such content to the article, that it is immediately clear where to put it, not having to ponder whether it should be added to where some other bits and pieces of that genesis are strewn in various parts of the article. As for Christian users of the encyclopedia, I don't think such more standardized article structure would or should be a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I will think about it, but my time is limited. The present state is certainly not what I want, but I need sleep from time to time. I wanted this a simple GA this year, and you - making admirable addition - pushed it way into FA direction, only at the wrong time, just when stability was wanted, and too fast for me to follow. - Quite generally: in an article about an image, we show that image as the very first thing. I feel that in an article about a hymn, we should show that hymn early. I confess that the interpretation by Koch is a fine example of one person's view which rather clouds an objective view than illuminates it, - it should not come before Gerhardt may even speak. I have little time today and tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't reply immediately, so you could have your rest, and I had some time to think too. Broadly disagree:
- Re. "...pushed it way into FA direction..." – can hardly be used as an excuse to push it back in the direction of a lower quality. Your "at the wrong time" comment: yeah sure, so any compliment can be turned into a reproach. I'm dedicated to improve this article's quality: what's good for a future FA (if any), would surely be good for a GA. And let's not forget this article wasn't ready for GA when you nominated it for that procedure, and has currently more than 50% my contributions. A good idea might be that you withdraw your GA nomination, and allow me to nominate it for that procedure.
- Re. "in an article about an image, (etc)" – lead images in an article about an image are hardly adequate representations of the article's topic, unless that topic is an extremely small miniature. E.g. a few paintings I know IRL, the
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning. Similarly for articles that are primarily about a musical composition: in a few instances I placed a recording as lead "image" ( Twelve Little Preludes
- In general Wikipedia is not the place to provide modern editions of whatever primary source. Wikisource and Commons exist for that purpose. See, e.g.,
WP:NOTLYRICS (policy). Koch's content summary may be dated, but that also means it is likely closer to the original. Anyhow, providing such summary (whether old or new) is more important than to have the complete lyrics. So no, the explanations of the translations are of course better given before the actual translations, etc...
- --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unwatching the article, do as you please. The Koch summary is misrepresenting Gerhardt (just look at the "incense" topic), and to see it presented before Gerhardt's work is unacceptable to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dictionary of Hymnology, used extensively as source throughout the article (before my additions it was even the only source used for contextualising the English translations), has:
... Koch, viii. 185, calls this "A splendid hymn of our poet, golden as the sun going forth in his beauty, full of force and of blessed peace in the Lord, full of sparkling thoughts of God."
About the "incense" topic: Gerhardt's original has "... dankbare Lieder sind Weihrauch und Widder ..." in the third stanza. Neither Winkworth (1855), nor Kelly (1867), nor Brueckner (1918) translate the "Widder". Koch's summary also omits the "Widder". Winkworth and Brueckner both translate the "Weihrauch", Brueckner even in the phrase "... like sweet incense ..." – which, as far as literal translations go, is the same as Koch's "... wie ein süßer Weihrauch". Whether all of this catches the depth of Gerhardt's intentions very well, or makes the original poetry sufficiently accessible for a 21st-century English-language readership is, failing any better sources that talk about this aspect, hardly the issue: we used to have Winkworth's translation of this stanza, which, having to conform to a rhyme scheme, takes arguably even more liberties w.r.t. Gerhardt's original than Koch. A summary, like Koch's, can hardly be accused of leaving some of the detail out – that's what summaries do: condensing the original, which automatically means that some of the detail is lost, like what I explained above about thumbnails, which in a Wikipedia article don't really render the detail of a full size painting. As a source for article content in Wikipedia, Koch, roughly the same age as Winkworth's translation, is generally preferred for being a secondary source, and is also generally closer to Wikipedia's purpose of "summarizing" knowledge, rather than being a blunt new release of a pre-existing primary source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
