Talk:Macht hoch die Tür

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Macht hoch die Tür/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Schminnte (talk · contribs) 01:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerda, I'll take this one. Expect finalised comments within a couple of days. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 01:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my review over, putting on hold for the standard time frame. Not much to do here. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 02:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

   Lede touches on all article points - S

   Further reading should be below references per

   MOS:ORDER

   - S

   done --GA

   Copyedits for GACR1a below:

   Infobox stuff

   Why have "by" preceding names? I personally don't see the need, the by is implicit - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you, Dcdiehardfan, for fixing things. For this please see the template documentation: the text parameter is for a text, such as a poem, Bible verses, a libretto. When we only know by whom "by" makes sense. --GA

   Fair enough, feel free to revert back - S

   done --GA

   Is there any way you can use parameters so we don't have two dates of composition? - S

   N

   This is not done - S

   Apologies, pinging @Gerda Arendt to resolve the issue. To avoid the confusion, could a footnote solve the issue? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   You can try. To me it seems normal that two melodies by different people may be composed at different times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   We deal with two melodies, by two composers just above, composed at different times. --GA

   Ok, that's fine based on explanation - S

   §Lede

   Should the English translation not be in quotes? - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The quotation marks make sense in prose to indicate where something long begins and ends. Within brackets, I see no reason for them. --GA

   To me,

   MOS:T#Translations

   which says that titles well-known in another language and English should copy the formatting (I would argue that the existence of Grindal's translation makes this true). Thoughts? - S

   accepted as this is now an English version - I think it was originally just a literal translation --GA

   First sentence is a bit wordy, suggest alteration to something like "is a popular German

   Ducal Prussia

   " - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see any reason to say "17th century" when the precise "1633" follows the next sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I was going off the existing text, but if you feel this is unnecessary feel free to remove - S

   I see that it was there in the translated German article. --GA

   The lyrics were written by Georg Weissel in 1623, for the inauguration of the Altroßgärter Kirche in Königsberg. is a comma needed? - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   As one of the best-known and most popular Advent songs, it was translated, into English by Catherine Winkworth in 1855 as "Lift up your heads, ye mighty gates", also to Swedish and Norwegian, among others. This seems wordy, and the comma after translated is spurious. Perhaps a split after "Lift up your heads, ye mighty gates"? Mock-up is As one of the best-known and most popular Advent songs, it was translated into English by Catherine Winkworth in 1855 as "Lift up your heads, ye mighty gates". It has also been translated into Swedish and Norwegian, as well as Indian languages like Telugu and Tamil. - S

    Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I think wikilinks to Telugu and Tamil will help - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   §History

   The lyrics of "Macht hoch die Tür" were written by Georg Weissel in 1623, on the occasion of the inauguration of the Altroßgärter Kirche in Königsberg on the second Sunday in Advent that year, where he was appointed minister the following Sunday. Words, suggest split after 1623 and then introductory phrase like "Weissel wrote the hymm for the..." - S

    Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   It is published in 62 hymnals. Either this needs to be put into context on its own (what hymnals? German hymnals, various languages etc) or properly joined with the sentence after the comma ["(GL 218),"] - S

    Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   §Text

   [...] king.(Psalms 24:7–10) Presumably period after brackets? - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   This passage meant originally sound better as "originally meant" - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Link first Sunday in Advent to Advent Sunday? - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The last two lines of all stanzas express praise, similar to a refrain, with the first stanza praising God, the second the Saviour, the third the Comforter, the fourth the Trinity, the final one the name of God for ever I think this is bordering on too wordy for me, maybe a split after "refrain"? - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   §Melodies

   Wikilink "setting" to Musical setting - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Stobäus re-published in 1642. "In 1642, Stobäus re-published" may work better - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   the Freylinghausen'sches Gesangbuch (Freylinghausen's Songbook), titled Geist-reiches Gesang-Buch (Song book rich in spirit) Do we need to know two names for the book? - S

    Removed The songbook one and kept the "Song book rich in spirit" translation in prose -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   No. 1 of his Zwölf deutsche geistliche Gesänge, WoO VI/13/1, written in 1899 can be simplified to "No. 1 of his 1899 [publication/composition] Zwölf deutsche geistliche Gesänge, WoO VI/13/1" - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   §Translations

   Wikilink Advent song - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

   Earwigs shows high copyvio but based on the text - S

   Everything is cited properly, no OR immediately visable - S

   References seem reliable - S

   Spotchecks below:

   Ref 1 (Fischer): verifiability fail as the URL is wrong. Correct URL is [1]. Continuing based off this:

   a: pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

   b: it might be my translation, but I think this source doesn't mention recommended reading. Please correct me if I'm wrong

   Ref 7 (Eccard 1642): pass for verifiability - S

   Ref 9 (IMSLP): uncontroversial score reading, pass for verifiability - S

   Ref 12 (hymnary.org): pass for verifiability - S

   Ref 13 (hymnary.org): pass for verifiability - S

   Url of ref Fischer fixed, sorry about that.

   b) "Als Evangelium ist in der lutherischen Liturgie die Perikope vom Einzug Jesu in Jerusalem (Mt 21,1-9) vorgesehen." means that the gospel (Evangelium) in the Lutheran Church at the time was typically the Entry into Jerusalem", - perhaps there's a better translation for "vorgesehen" than "recommended", - how about "intended"? All help with slight differences of English are welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Intended sounds good here - S

   used --GA

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article remains on-topic throughout

   At 627 words, I'm wondering if the article covers all the major aspects. For one of the most popular advent hymns, is there more that could possibly added? If no, just say, I'm trusting that you will let me know about German sources - S

   Looking at [2] (which I will partially assess this article off), we don't seem to talk about paragraphs IV and V - S

   Do you mean that the conten of those paras in the source should be used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm more meaning that this is a good source for the history of the hymn. This more modern history seems to be an aspect that our article doesn't discuss. - S

   Satisfied now that the article covers all major parts (history, text, melody, translations, settings). Although quite short at less than 700 words, I believe it covers these main areas well - S

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Any praise is clearly sourced, no bias present - S

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring present in this rather quiet page history - S

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):

   File:Max Reger, Macht hoch die Tür, score.gif has PD tags and an appropriate caption - S

   File:Macht hoch die Tür (1734).jpg has PD tag and an appropriate caption. I wonder if the caption could be rephrased slightly to remove some clunkiness: thoughts on "Macht hoch die Tür" in the Freylinghausensches Gesangbuch (17th edition, 1734), where the popular melody was first associated with the hymn"? - S

   Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I notice here the rather large score of Reger's setting. Just wondering what is the reasoning behind having two scores of the same setting (infobox and inline prose)? - S

   Not sure. The setting in the infobox is by Reger, the other by Silcher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I was misled here by the fact that the preceding sentence is regarding Reger's setting. On the other hand, an introduction to help make sense of this score would be much appreciated. - S

   tried, last thing today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you Gerda: altered slightly, I would prefer a secondary source but this is fine for now. Just the historical information and then I'll be happy to pass this - S

   I'll expand, but not immediately - a RD article waiting, and weather excellent, first time this year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I added a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you Gerda, I will pass this now. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 22:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: