Talk:Sie werden aus Saba alle kommen, BWV 65

	Sie werden aus Saba alle kommen, BWV 65 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 1, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 6, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that instruments in Bach's cantata for Epiphany (pictured), Sie werden aus Saba alle kommen (They will all come from Sheba), have been compared to the salamiya and zurna?
	A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 6, 2024.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical music: Compositions This article is supported by Compositions task force.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Sie werden aus Saba alle kommen, BWV 65/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take on this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Can we say something like (German for "They will all come forth out of Sheba") in the lead, and also in similar cases in the main article?

We could, but typically don't so far, compare

BWV 1

--GA

Fine, if it is not the norm, no need. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be good to add "composer" or perhaps "German composer" before Bach.

same (a cantata is always composed, and there was no Germany in a political sense at his time) --GA

Fine, if it is not the norm, no need. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is "Sanctus"?

good catch, linked now --GA

• Can "movement", "librettist", "oboes da caccia", "basso continuo", "secco", "chorale" and "horn" be wikilinked? Feel free to ignore any if they would appear too common to a reader well-versed with such compositions :)

movement, librettist, chorale: yes, instruments: better in Baroque instrumental ensemble, secco: is explained in recitative --GA

History and words

• You may wish to repeat the links from the lead in the main article.

tried --GA

• Can "D major" be linked? Also, why exclude this from the lead?

yes, done, - in the lead, only the load of work should be shown, the key of this piece (which isn't the cantata doesn't matter --GA

• but it as assumed to be stanza I think it should be "is", not "as".

you are so right

• The source for the last line?

any from Christmas oratorio, - do we have to copy? --GA

Well, just don't leave anything without an inline citation, raises eyebrows. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a ref --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring and structure

• Delink recitative and aria, they are duplinks.

yes, they are, but readers may jump to this from the TOC --GA

Oh, I thought we could do without them. No trouble. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music

• Its melody, in triple time is set for four parts. Is the comma needed or should we add a comma after "time"?

added, good point --GA

Selected recordings

• on the Bach-Cantatas website Perhaps add "official" to this, as there could be many others of the same sort but unofficial?

but is it? - it's a great website, but to be used with care, - I rely on it only for the recordings which are documented very well, up to the names of instrumentalists, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it is not official? No changes needed then. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rest looks good. These points addressed, I would be happy to promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for diligent reading and good comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks from my side for writing such a masterpiece! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes done, can be promoted now. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 01:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would affect many articles, but the headings for the columns in the table of movements could clearer, and some of the categories need to be more parallel. To my mind, the heading "time" is just not clear (without looking at the items in the column). We should replace "time" with "metre". The heading "vocal" should be replaced with "voices" to improve clarity and to make it parallel with the headings "winds" and "strings". The last is less important, but it would be more accurate to use "opening words" or something like that, than "title". --HenryPurcell (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking about it. Our article is Time signature, not metre. "Voices" would be fine with me, BUT it's most often just one voice singing in one movement, in some cantatas, only one voice is singing throughout, and "Vocal" and "Instrumental" are the terms used in the infobox. The movements are known by their "opening word", a phrase I never heard so far, or incipit, a phrase our readers may have to look up, so "title" seems fine in a general way. What do you think of one introductory explanation of all these? Word it here and discuss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Here are my responses to various terms. "Time signature", which you mention is the name of the Wikipedia subject article, would be fine. I suggested metre because it is concise and would also accurately convey the intended meaning. "Time" by itself is ambiguous, and would suggest either the historical era (or date) or the duration. "Time" by itself does not convey the meaning of "time signature". I do not think that having the plural "voices" as the designation for a category would be at all problematic for situations where only one voice was in the category. Syntactically using an adjective, i.e. vocal, here lacks parallelism to the other categories and to what is being categorized. Rather, the category should be a noun or noun phrase, such as "voices" or "vocal forces". "Title" is confusing, because hymns often have names (= titles) for the tunes, which are independent of the text. The term "first line" is often used for what is being designated in these tables. "Title" implies that a name has been given, as opposed to simply using he "opening words" or "first line". By the way, "opening words" is not common phrase, but rather a concise, accurate description of what is being shown in the category. I'm not sure whether I understand the question about what I "think of one introductory explanation of all these?" Does this mean an introductory explanation for the terms used at the tops of the tables? Would such an explanation appear before each table? I think it would be preferable to use designations that need as little explanation as possible. --HenryPurcell (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]