Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172/archive1

Agreed on leaving the "early work" part till paragraph 2. (1) Still tautological. (2) very good, but in this version why not link "cantata" to Cantata? I don't understand why you think that link is a detour. The cantata article describes the thing that this work is an instance of -- "Bach cantata" is not a genre distinct from Cantata#Baroque. If we were writing about a Beethoven piano sonata, would you object to linking to Sonata? (3) Not sure. It solves the LINKCLARITY issue, but it looks contrived to me, and I really dislike presenting "Bach cantata" as if it were a genre separate from the one that Buxtehude, Graupner and the rest were working in. It separates him from his context. I'd really like to know other people's views rather than keep on going round and round this. --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) was meant to be explaining. (2) If I would write an article on a Beethoven piano sonata, I would like to link to Piano sonatas (Beethoven), not to piano sonatas or even sonatas. If I would write about a bird species, I would want to link to the family, not to birds or even animals ;) - (Also: I am reluctant to change 200 articles, some existing for more than four years.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I'm in two minds about this. I can see exactly what Stfg is getting at, in that we don't want the uninitiated reader to miss the Cantata article. On the other hand, for someone who knows a little more, the Bach cantata article is so useful that we wouldn't want to fail to provide a link for that. Practically, the Cantata article is linked from the second sentence of the Bach cantata article (and the Bach cantata article is linked from the second paragraph of the Cantata article!), so I'm probably less worried about the reader failing to find both articles if needed, even if the link from this one goes to Bach cantata. I'd be interested to hear what others think about the general case of linking to Cantata/Bach cantata, because - as Gerda says - this is an issue for around 200 articles potentially. --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a stab at the opening paragraph with this issue in mind. Hope its acceptable. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very big improvement. I'm still uncomfortable with directing "cantata" to Bach cantata, but the prose flow is excellent in your version, Ceoil. --Stfg (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have changed the link. Its not a big deal imo, we can re-establish later in the article. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe even at the start of the second paragraph, which could perhaps become: "This Bach cantata is an early work in a genre to which the composer contributed ...". Gerda, we don't have to change all 200 articles at once, just the ones that are heading to FAC. And I'll help, if you like. --Stfg (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Stfg, and it will kill two birds with one stone as I found that sentenance problmatic anyway. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waking up: I will not revert, but reading Cantata again: that should be improved ;) - The question if in a bird species article the first link should go to article animals was not answered. My argument is still: link to the closest more general term, that will link to the next even more general term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding birds: one does both, but in a way that achieves good prose and link clarity. See for example the featured article

Alpine Chough. I'm very disappointed that you have reverted to a phrasing that tells us that it's a cantata by Bach in one sentence and then repeats that Bach composed the church cantata in the very next sentence. The redundancy and clumsiness of that was pointed out three days ago and was solved by Ceoil's version as well as the two offered by me. And I dispute that "Bach cantata" is a "term" -- it's a common phrase certainly, but no more a "term" than are "Beethoven symphony", "Mozart symphony", "Brahms symphony", ... or even, heaven help us, "Palestrina symphony" (yes, I know he didn't write any). These are just phrases that combine a composer with a genre and are mentioned more or less commonly, nothing more. --Stfg (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I am seriously thinking about writing an article

composed", in the name of link clarity ;)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm, church cantata as the only link might be a good way to go, perhaps. Thanks for linking that discussion. I hadn't seen it, but have read it now. What I'm saying now appears to be the same as what JackofOz was saying back then, and I don't think it was validly refuted. I agree that piping "composed" to the list was a bad idea, but it was at least an attempt to move forward, and could have been solved by continuing the discussion. I do think you went a bit over the top when you restored the old repetitive phrasing. Also, "contributed so proficiently" is editorializing and POV, and that whole sentence doesn't contribute the lead's function of summarizing the article. I feel you are trying to place Bach as an isolated figure on a pedestal instead of presenting him in the context of his time and place. He was doing what many composers around then were doing -- extremely well, for sure, but not qualitatively different. Now, how (in terms of process) are we going to solve this? --Stfg (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, please have a look, anticipating that there will be an article Church cantata eventually. Process: I preferred the process to try things out here, but I will try to learn, patience also ;) - It's no pedestal but simply fact to single him out for the genre in quantity and even more quality, - his works get performed even in 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That version is great. You'll see I've also wikilinked the mention of "Bach cantatas" in the Occasion and words section. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning my name, Stfg. After struggling manfully for some considerable time, I just lost all appetite for dealing with Gerda's utter stubbornness and I unwatched Bach cantata, hoping that more persuasive editors might now succeed where I had failed so completely. I hadn't seen the more recent posts to that page. Having now brought myself up to speed, it still looks to me like Gerda is very much a lone voice on the current title, with many dissenting voices, yet somehow the consensus has not yet won the day. How long must we wait, O Lord? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to wait until 27 January 2014, when I invited to move, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your language defeats me, Gerda (not for the first time, and probably not for the last). This is really the crux of the problem: a non-native speaker of English (not that there's anything wrong with being that) insisting that her wording is better than anything any native speaker would prefer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not understand in "Then you can also try moving to the plural"? Btw,

Bach Cantata Pilgrimage" is not my invention, but that of English speakers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps this discussion of the article title could continue at Talk:Bach cantata? This is the FAC for BWV172, and I consider my comment resolved already. --Stfg (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The second paragraph tells us twice that the recitative includes a quotation from the Gospel. One solution could be to remove it from the first sentence (leaving only the closing chorale there), and to rewrite the second as "The opening chorus is followed by the cantata's only recitative, in which Jesus' words from the day's prescribed Gospel are sung by the bass as the vox Christi (voice of Christ)."

I tried.

I tweaked, but you can revert if you prefer. I'm happy. --Stfg (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like your version!

• I don't understand the sentence "The idea of unity is concluded in a chorale", both because we haven't been introduced to a theme of unity yet, and because I don't understand how a chorale can conclude an idea.

Will think about it.

The preceding duet says: "You are mine, I am yours." That is what I summarized to "unity". Can you word it? I will add more of the text of the hymn. There's a link, but it's probably better to be more explicit.

I tried something, picking up intimacy from the previous sentence. What do you think? (It's the edit summary mentioning bullet 2, because I can't count to 3. Hey ho!) --Stfg (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Background section: I don't know German well enough to replace it, but dargegen in this context surely can't mean however. Does it mean something like on condition that? Also, "monthly" should go after "pieces".

It's old German, I asked an expert for a better translation

"dargegen" is "however", no way around it. However, the thing why it is used is in the ellipsis, both in German as in English. We could drop the word in both languages, but it is in the source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we drop it we lose the meaning. I've done some research: dargegen is the same as dagegen, isn't it? And dagegen can be used to mean "in return" or "in exchange for it", according to Cassell's dictionary. There is no contrast between having a post as Koncertmeister, so "however" is surely impossible here. I think the meaning is that he had to do the monthly performances in return for being appointed Konzertmeister. --Stfg (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as performing new pieces seems to be what Bach wanted, "had to do ... in return" doesn't make too much sense to me, but I don't care enough to be against it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok - that does make sense for me. "He was appointed Konzertmeister dagegen he was required to do the monthly performances". Literally "against that [appointment]" fits. I understand that 'however' would be a normal translation into English, but the sense of 'gegen/against' here is surely that the favour of the position is placed against the obligation to perform - far more literal than the modern 'however' which carries the connotation of 'on the other hand' (which isn't intended here). I also wonder how much translation can be considered OR, but for now, I'll simply recommend 'in return' as the best translation of 'dargegen' in this context. Gerda: I think that the commentary is describing the general duties of any Konzertmeister there. Although Bach clearly took relish in creating the new pieces, he was still fulfilling an obligation of the role. For me I don't see a contradiction in "had to do ... in return" - "to have to do something" in English is often less compulsory than "mussen etwas machen" and more like "sollen etwas machen" as here. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RexxS for that very clear analysis. Gerda, the "had to do the monthly performances in return ..." were my words above, and perhaps not well chosen. What we're really dealing with is dagegen he is to perform new pieces ..., and I think that the sense RexxS describes can be captured with (for example) for which he is to perform new pieces .... I've boldly put that in for now, but if you or anyone have another preference, please go ahead and amend it. --Stfg (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Occasion and words section: need a translation of "Gott will sich die Seelen zum Tempel bereiten".

Seems easy, but the two in the sources are both far away from the German. I take one of them for now and will try to find something better.

By the way, the PDF that comes with the Rillig/Hänssler recording gives this line as "Gott will sich die Seelen zu Tempeln bereiten". Is there a misprint, or are there different versions? That could mean something quite different, couldn't it? Unfortunately, the translation there is no use to us -- it's one of those that preserve the number of syllables rather than the meaning. --Stfg (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This web page gives: "God will prepare souls to become temples". Append "for himself", and that seems to be what the zu Tempeln form means, doesn't it? --Stfg (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"zu Tempeln" is correct, thank you! (But it's Rilling.)

My translation would be: "God wants to prepare the souls to his temples." (not a future "will", but a present "wants", "die Seelen" = "the souls" (not just "souls"), "sich" could also be give as "for himself", as you say. How do we change the article, OR vs. so-called reliable sources which clearly have it wrong?

Oops, yes, Rilling. "... prepare the souls to his temples" wouldn't be understood. "... to be his temples"? "... to become his temples"? I understand about die Seelen, but if we say "the Souls", a native English speaker will want to know which souls. I think sometimes German uses a definite article in places where English omits it. Agreed about will/wants (I'm always making that mistake too). I don't know the answer to the own-translation vs sources issue: we happily write articles in which we cite foreign-language sources, so I suppose it's accepted that we understand them. Why then can't we translate them? Could someone who understands how this is done pitch in here, please? --Stfg (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closest translation then "God wants to prepare [our] souls to become his temples"? Anyway, a complex building process is what Bach composed, complicated polyphony vs. the simplicity of the first section, - more OR ;) (The trumpeters wished us good luck for the middle section, knowing its dangers. They smiled when we did it, the first time already.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that translation. --Stfg (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Scoring and structure section states seven movements, but the lede states six.

Please find a good wording that <<there are six different pieces of music, and that the seventh is a repeat of the first, but only to 1724, not in later performances during Bach's time. (We repeated, of course.)

Actually I just deleted the seven movements. The table makes the whole picture clear, and the last sentence of the first paragraph makes the history clear. Is that all right? The Rilling CD doesn't do the repeat. I feel cheated! ;) --Stfg (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The aforementioned Rillig PDF says that Bach "composes for the old-fashioned, five-part string setting (with divided violas) in the French style, which he will not renounce until mid-1715 (BWV 165 ...). Is this useful for the Scoring and structure section? I can give citation details if wanted, but I'm not sure where you'd want to put it, as it's neither a book nor online.

It is useful, but is one more a thing for Bach cantata, because it's valid for most of the (22) Weimar cantatas.

Will try to say a bit.

OK. --Stfg (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Movement 1: need to say in what sense this is a concerto, as this will confuse most readers. Would it be correct to link it to Concerto#Early Baroque concerto?

Good idea!

• Movement 1: "The voices enter as a third homophonic choir, repeating the fanfare motives, echoed by the trumpets, and imitating the string lines." -- which are echoed by the trumpets, the third homophonic choir or the fanfare motives?

Score: in the ritornello, the trumpets begin with a fanfare one measure fanfare, repeated by the strings. When the voices come in, they repeat what the trumpets played before on "Erschallet", the trumpets play what the strings played before, - a sequence of short motifs echoed by the choirs = concerto. Better wording, if possible?

I'm not sure what to make of that. If I understood what you just wrote (which I may not have), that would mean the chorus echoes the trumpets while the trumpets echo the strings. But I can't find any of this in the Gardiner source you cite here -- isn't it all OR? --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to connect to score examples, here and elsewhere, but possibly not today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that anything remotely smacking of analysis of the score that couldn't be carried out by a non-musician is OR. This is because the score is a primary source and comes under the Policy paragraph of

WP:PRIMARY, bullet 1. --Stfg (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I like your revision citing Lowen. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Movement 2: the idea of "making dwelling with him". I'm not sure what this means. Is it to do with "sich die Seelen zu Tempeln bereiten"?

No, from the Gospel quotation, given in two translations, also mentioned in the quote block.

Ah, OK. --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Movement 4: "in great contrast": is the contrast internal to the movement or a contrast with the previous aria?

Contrast to the previous, - How to say so best?

I tried something. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Movement 5: I've removed the claim that the Christe Eleison and Domine deus in the Missa (also B minor mass) are "for soprano and alto, as in Erschallet, ihr Lieder". Rathey does not say this. Of course, the Christe eleison is for two sopranos and the Domine deus is for soprano and tenor.

Sorry, I should have known better, having written the other article also ;)

• Note to other reviewers: I have run Ucucha's duplinks tool and fixed what it found, but have deliberately retained duplicate links to BWV 21 and "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern", since the second links are at places where a reader may well want to refer to those articles.

More to follow. --Stfg (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may be done now. Will move to support once the outstanding things are resolved. --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for more food for thought --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Echoed once more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for an interesting and enjoyable collaboration. --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All isues raised by my comments have been resolved and I am happy to support this nomination. Hope it can be TFA on the tercentenary of its first performance. --Stfg (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN6: is the translated quote original? If so, needs editing for grammar. Also, ellipses generally aren't bracketed, particularly not when they aren't in the translation

If you mean the quote about Bach's appointment (now FN7), it's sourced in the book to "Bach-Dokumente (Dok) Kassel 1963 ff., II, 53 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase "The text thus proceeds from general to more and more personal and intimate reflection" really should have a citation immediately

done

• FN13, 22: page formatting
• FN27: page?
• Why are dates in short cites sometimes in parentheses and sometimes not?
• Second entry in Scores needs publisher; also, you should either specify which score(s) from these sites are being cited, or if these are meant as general resources separate them from the list of cited sources

Publisher added. The first score is the edition of the Bach Gesellschaft (BGA), historic, difficult access, PDF, the second is easy access. Both are at present not used to cite (but could be), the vocal score is, see below --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the BGA now for the information of the publishing, but don't know how to cite it properly. The other has sound, - how could that be shown? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher for Kilian?

done

How do I refer to its Vorwort (preface)? Source for details such as the possible parody of movement 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean how to cite the Vorwort in a shortened footnote, I'd use {{sfn|Kilian|1965|loc=preface}}. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher for Dürr 1951? Also, are you certain of the title?

done

• ISBN for Nieden?

done

• GBooks links aren't PDFs and don't need accessdates. Also, the Wolff link could be truncated after the page number

understand GBooks, but not Wolff question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Zedler title should use endashes not hyphens. Also, BoD is a printer not a publisher - is there an actual publisher for this work or was it self-published? If the former, should include original publication info; if the latter, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?

Zedler and Mincham - another self-published author - have in common that they summarize and comment well what can be seen in the score. I tried to reduce citations by Zedler, and to support others by a second source to the same fact. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There don't appear to be any citations to the Oregon Festival source - should avoid mixing cited and non-cited sources in a single section

used now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of the bach-cantatas links are actually online copies of recording booklets - it would make sense to include the original publication information (or possibly even use that instead, with the BC site as a convenience link only). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some things done, more to come, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Consider providing a sound sample - given the age of the work there may be free ones available

  I can look after this. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I found this, how would I include it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't; its streaming only, so unable to download to take an excerpt. I uploaded this - trying to rember the source; I think we are allowed at least one FU short sample. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Schlosskirche_Weimar_1660.jpg: needs US PD tag
• File:Wilhelm_Ernst,_Herzog_von_Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach.jpg: needs US PD tag. Also, do we know artist and/or page number in source?
• File:Young_Bach2.jpg: source link is dead
• File:Commontime.svg is not original enough to warrant copyright protection, and even if it were the uploader would not hold that copyright
• The source for File:John_Eliot_Gardiner_at_rehearsal_in_Wroclaw_cropped_portrait.jpeg requests a photo credit
• File:Freudenspiegel_deß_ewigen_Lebens_409.jpg: needs US PD tag, and source link returns error. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for diligent checks, I will look into it, but it will take a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've amended the translation from FN6 to something more idiomatic in English. Please feel free to improve if anyone is familiar with 18th-century German.
• FN13, 22 - I've corrected the p/pp mismatch.
• I've standardised on {{sfn}}, replacing 4 {{sfnp}}, thus removing the parentheses around those 4 dates.
• Wolff's book is no longer shown as PDF format and its url is more concise. I've removed its accessdate on the assumption that it has no value in the case of Google Books.
• Zelder's title now uses ndashes
• I've added tags to File:Schlosskirche_Weimar_1660.jpg and File:Wilhelm_Ernst,_Herzog_von_Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach.jpg on Commons, indicating they are faithful reproductions of 2-D art from 1660 & 1713. No doubt somebody can improve on those, but I feel they explain why those images are PD in the USA.
• I've given the Wayback Machine archive url for the source of File:Young_Bach2.jpg on Commons.
• I agree with your assessment of the copyright status of File:Commontime.svg, but as it is PD by either route, I believe that to be an issue for the image on Commons, not for this article. Should I drop a note on the relevant talk page?
• In the caption of File:John Eliot Gardiner at rehearsal in Wroclaw cropped portrait.jpeg I've credited ©Maciej Goździelewski per request from the original (and updated the derivative's permissions on Commons).
• Frewdenspiegel deß ewigen Lebens is dated 1599, so unless the author lives in Shangri-La, he or she has probably been death for more than 100 years. I've updated the tag for File:Freudenspiegel deß ewigen Lebens 409.jpg to PD-old-100 on Commons. The source link works for me - try http://129.187.255.202/~zend-bsb/wasserzeichen-projekte.php?seite=00433&id=00017838&bibl=bsb&groesser=150&datum=20140301145040&kennziffer=40014014405003034001 which is where it redirects to.

There's more to do, but they need Gerda's library. Hope that helps with some of it. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, excellent help, I did a few myself now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I peer reviewed, and my few comments were thoroughly dealt with there. This is a lovely article, clear, comprehensive and well balanced (which does not preclude the nominator's enthusiasm shining out). I can't see any respect in which this does not meet the FA criteria. If, by the way, the delegate calls for a spot check on sources I shall be happy to toddle round to the British Library to do the honours, though, knowing Gerda's work from long and happy experience, I doubt if there will be any problem. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re this edit: am I mistaken in thinking we don't usually need access dates for book sources? Especially as two seem to have it twice and two not to have it at all. --Stfg (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same, and removed at least the doubles. Main reason for the edit was to point out that the reference for the quotation for the appointment as concert master was a dead link, - it worked a few days ago, and I replaced it by another one. I wonder if we could have direct access to the mentioned "Bach Dokumente"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were introduced by a new editor, (mis)using the checklinks tool in this edit at 14:45 today. Since the Google Books link is merely for convenience and won't be available in an archive should GBooks disappear, the accessdates are worthless clutter. I've removed the remaining six and dropped a note on the editor's page explaining the issue. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A traveller at Peer Review who is delighted to see that this has been improved further from then. I'm very happy to support this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only a small point, but does anybody else find the bolding of "Erschallet, ihr Lieder" in the third sentence a little out-of-place? I know we embolden alternate titles on their first appearance by convention, but I always understood that it was done to let a reader who searches on that term see at a glance that they have arrived at the right page. Surely anyone searching on "Erschallet, ihr Lieder" would know this was the right page when they saw "Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten!" in the first line? I'm sure it doesn't matter much either way, but aesthetically, I know I prefer to keep bolding to a minimum. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that we bold redirects,

Erschallet, ihr Lieder is one. On top of that, it's the name that many sources use, and the name that will be used for the rest of the article. I hesitated to add it to the infobox as |other_names= because it is not "other", just shorter and practical. - I reduced the bolding of the English translation. As said in the edit summary, it's not a title, only one of many possible ones, not even a good one, but cited. A better one - also cited - raised a minor problem in the PR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I think Gerda might be referring to

WP:R#PLA. It might be felt, though, that an obvious abbreviation (curtailment to the first three words) would be an "other obvious close variant". I think not-bold looks better, but don't feel strongly about this. --Stfg (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I think unbolded would carry the reader's eye along more smoothly, though, like Stfg, I don't have especially strong views on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm; I had bolded "Resound now, ye lyrics, ring out now, ye lyres!", but was reverted as it is a poor eng translation. So why is it within the lead sentance. If its not reflective of the title, its shouldnt be there. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some precedents for the presentation of translated titles. All are current FAs:

• unbolded italic unquoted:
  • Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria
  • L'incoronazione di Poppea
  • Drama dari Krakatau
  • La Peau de chagrin
• bold italic unquoted:
  • Las Meninas
  • Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel)
• normal typeface quoted
  • Ketuanan Melayu
  • Kahaani
• normal typeface unquoted
• Lage Raho Munna Bhai

Note that all of these are translations of the title, not accepted English titles. None of these translations are cited. I suggest following the music ones (the first two) in going for a good translation, uncited, and presented in unbolded italic. --Stfg (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I start by suggesting "Ring out, ye songs - resound, ye chords!" --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: the topic was recently discussed at MoS, result "normal typeface unquoted". I think there's clearly no reason to bold the translation. "Ring out, ye songs - resound, ye strings!" is more literal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• Tim, purely as this is Gerda's first solo FAC, I'll take you up on the offer to do a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, if you'd be so kind...
  • By all means. I'll report back on Monday, all being well. Tim riley (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• On a related point, and following on from Blofeld's comment right at the top, at FAC I generally expect to see each paragraph end with a citation (unless said para is clearly just a summary of cited material to follow). The ones that caught my eye were the first and third paras of Background, and the Publication section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added publication, then first got rid of the red links by writing two articles, then sourced publication (had first to learn how). What I found is that we possibly will have to move the article, because the the publications have only Erschallet, ihr Lieder. Bach didn't write a title.

The first word that Bach actually wrote was Coro, Italian for Chorus. I would like advice how to mention that. My approach was to list it in the table of the structure.

Sourcing of other Bach cantatas: the dates and occasions for Bach's cantatas are given in two lists and the in individual cantata articles, - do we have to repeat it, or is it rather clutter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of sources

No problems. Two minor tweaks required, I think, as mentioned below:

• 7 (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 8 (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 9 (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 10 (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 11a (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 11b (Wolff 2002) – please check page number: this was on p. 148 in the 2002 copy I consulted
• 13a (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 13b (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 14 (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 15 (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 17 (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 18 (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 26a (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 26b (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 26c (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 26d (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 29 (Wolff 2002) – fine
• 33a (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 33b (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 34 (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 36 (Buelow) – fine
• 49 (Dürr 1971) – fine
• 50 (Dürr 1971) – please check page numbers: this info was divided between pp. 115 and 117 in the British Library's copy. (Also, ref 44 should be shown before ref 50 here.)

All statements in the sample are backed by the cited sources. There is no close paraphrasing. Is it too late to add a small afterthought about drafting? In "Scoring and structure" I think perhaps it might be clearer and more precise to replace "while" in the second sentence with "whereas". I enjoyed re-reading this article, and look forward to seeing it on our front page in due course. – Tim riley (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim, adjusted, you are right, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  talk) 10:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]