Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 [1].

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a

• Oppose promotion to FA: too many idiosyncracies, and edit-warring forum shopping has begun to keep them in ([2]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I live on voluntary 1RR, and began a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Please keep discussions in one place: I raised the issue here, please don't open the same discussion at another forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't. I opened it before I even saw your comment here, and I believe that Classical music is the better forum than FAC. It concerns all Bach works, and it has nothing to do with FA criteria. All previous FAs on Bach's cantatas have BWV bold. It's approved quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  But you agree I opened this discussion before yours, so there's no problem in closing discussions in the two other places with a link to here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Gerda now opened the same discussion in a fourth venue (which I promptly closed). @Gerda Arendt: please stop the forum shopping / disallowed canvassing: how many times have I linked to that guidance? How much did you learn since? Not much, apparently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gerda Arendt: repeating my suggestion to (formally) close concurrent discussions about the same topic elsewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not in a position to close a discussion formally, also don't know what you refer to. I said "closed" for the discussion mentioned above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  On the content and layout of the lead paragraph (which we still seem to be discussing in several places at the same time) I'd propose something in this vein:

  Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (

  cantatas of his second year in Leipzig it was composed as a chorale cantata. In principle such a cantata is based on a specific Lutheran chorale. Luther's German Magnificat is however not a chorale: its melody is a psalm tone, and thus lacks the metre and harmonic structure which are typical for chorales. Nonetheless, the process with which Bach adopted text and melody of Luther's German Magnificat into his Meine Seel erhebt den Herren cantata was the same as the one he used for adopting chorales into the other cantatas of his chorale cantata cycle

  .

  Advantages of this approach:

  • Less cluttered lead sentence:
    • The translation of the text incipit is not copyrighted – it is a standard English translation of the opening sentence of the Magnificat (like the opening sentence of the cantata is a standard German translation of the same), e.g. Wikipedia uses it without reference or copyright notice in the lead sentence of the Magnificat article (hence I linked to that article from the English translation for those who are unaware of the cultural reference of this English sentence): that translation has been around way before Dellal put it on her website in 2012, so the first numbered footnote with the reference to that website can be omitted from the lead sentence (it can be put in the section that talks about the text of the cantata if it isn't already there).
    • Less boldface (less frequently used synonyms don't necessarily need boldface)
    • No explanatory footnote: such footnote can (and should per
      WP:ACRO
      ) be replaced by a wikilink for the first occurrence of the BWV acronym
    • Luther (i.e. last name only) would be clear to most readers in the context, and if not the first name (Martin) would probably not help much for those readers who don't know who this person is (link would need to be clicked anyway).
  • Luther(an) context clear from first sentence (which over-all, apart from the music being composed by Bach, is probably the most significant general aspect of the context of this cantata)
  • Next I'd talk about the occasion (Visitation) and the chorale cantata format (will try something that is better organised and readable than the current lead paragraph if nobody else does so with a solution I can sympathise with) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  In a FAC, with several people commenting and making changes, you will never be able to maintain one position. The disadvantages of your lead sentence that I see are:

  • It is not consistent with other articles on Bach cantatas, FA, GA, and others.
  • Specifically: it lacks an early mentioning of time and place, for me the minimum service an article should give a reader.
  • Also specifically: It lacks BWV 10 in bold, which is 1) part of the article title, 2) an incoming link, 3) something not German, 4) distinguishing this article from Luther's.
  • I don't see the "consequently" sourced in the article, and met the term German Magnificat in none of the sources I used, so believe it's not even needed to mention it in the lead, and if mentioned, no need to bold it.

  Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Re. "...you will never be able to maintain one position" – of course this is something I welcome.

  I completed my first draft of the intro rewrite proposal now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your suggestion. The points above, worded earlier for only its first sentence, still apply. Please see also below that the article reads too technical. A previous FAC demanded that we don't surprise the reader with the "Easter egg" church cantata (going to the highly specialized Church cantata (Bach)), but establish Bach cantata first. A random reader should be told early that we deal with Leipzig in 1724, - we can't take knowledge about where Bach did what when for granted. I'd hesitate to mention Magnificat before clarifying Visitation. Please read how strange the term Magnificat is for some of our readers, on this Magnificat talk. I'd also prefer a sense of chronology: nobody at Bach's time would have talked about a "German Magnificat", therefore I'd mention it much later, and probably not bold. That term doesn't appear in books by Dürr, Wolff and Jones, but yes in the preface by Großpietsch. To me, it looks like an attempt to set this German Magnificat apart from the Latin one, and perhaps where that is mentioned in the article would be a good position to mention the term. The greatest difference seems to be that the Latin was repeated for high holidays, and revised, while the German seems restricted to Visitation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  New proposal (the three paragraphs proposed here would replace the first two paragraphs of the current lead section):

  his second cantata cycle. Its title translates as "My soul magnifies the Lord", and is taken from Martin Luther's German translation of the Magnificat canticle ("Meine Seele erhebt den Herren"). The cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He wrote it for the Feast of the Visitation (2 July). The composition is in Bach's chorale cantata

  format.

  The Feast of the Visitation commemorates

  psalm tone. The sung version of the canticle concludes with a doxology, translated from the Gloria Patri, on the same tune. Bach based his BWV 10 cantata on Luther's German Magnificat and its traditional setting, working text and melody into the composition in a similar way as he did with Lutheran hymns

  in his other chorale cantatas.

  Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month into his second year as

  mixed choir and orchestra, consisting of trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo. Luther's translation of Luke 1:46–48 is the text of the first movement. The canticle's doxology is the text of the last movement. The five middle movements are a succession of arias and recitatives, with, between the fourth and sixth movement, a duet for alto and tenor. Soprano and bass

  each have one aria, and the two recitatives are sung by the tenor. The text of the arias and recitatives is paraphrased and expanded from (Luther's German translation of) Luke 1:49–53 and 55. The text of the duet is Luther's translation of Luke 1:54. The melody associated with Luther's German Magnificat appears in movements 1, 5 and 7.

  The music of two of the cantata's movements was published in the 18th century: an

  19th-century first complete edition of Bach's works

  . In 20th- and 21st-century concert and recording practice the cantata was often combined with other German-language cantatas, but also several times with settings of the Latin Magnificat, by Bach and other composers.

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC) (added draft of 4th paragraph, to make this proposal for the lead section complete 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

  • It is unusual to not begin with the title, but let's try. --GA
  • I want to see BWV 10 bold, as an important redirect, and the part of the article title which distinguishes it from Luther's. --GA

    Re. "I want ..." – see more elaborate comment about "what I would do / I don't use..." below; also your own comment about maintaining a position in a FAC above. Imho it is about time to lose the idiosyncrasy in this instance, have the lead sentence conform to applicable guidance, and make it as inviting as possible for the reader (which includes removing clutter like footnoted explanations and optional boldface wherever such removal is allowed by applicable guidance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's not helpful to introduce a complex concept such as the chorale cantata cycle before even a translation is given. --GA

    ? The "chorale cantata cycle" concept is not introduced before the translation is given? What does the cycle concept have to do with translation? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive my sloppyness, please, it's "his second cantata cycle", - but the same applies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As does the same question: "What does the cycle concept have to do with translation?". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that we have to say that Luther's translation is called the German Magnificat. --GA

    Taken, worked it in the proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand mentioning Bach's chorale cantata format between the term Visitation (which many readers will not know) and its explanation. Probably Visitation should come sooner than even Magnificat, because it explains why Bach set the Magnificat, at least when the prescribed reading for the feast day is mentioned. --GA

    First paragraph of the intro is "summary of summaries", short sentences about the cantata's essential characteristics; characteristics that set it apart from similar compositions receive a bit more attention. I see nothing wrong with that approach: it is not possible to have it all in one lead sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Luther details (year of translation etc) seem too much detail for the lead (summary) of this article, - it would be appropriate in the body, perhaps in the lead of his German Magnificat. --GA

    Taken, leaves to be seen how this is mentioned elsewhere (body of this article and/or German Magnificat article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month ...",- also too much detail. If he didn't compose the cantata in one day, he composed it in June, - why mention any month? Perhaps: "When Bach composed the cantata ..." --GA

    The sentence says nowhere "composed", so I don't understand the last part of your comment. Early July refers to 2 July as mentioned in the first paragraph (when the cantata was first presented), i.e., without using the exact same expression which may be experienced as too repetitive in prose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The details (SATB, translation of continuo) of scoring are way too much detail for the lead, also the follwing, which voice sings with what instrument when. --GA

    The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis, movement by movement, of the composition: a summary, in half a paragraph of the lead section, of some 50% of the prose of the article seems appropriate. Also, the current summary of the same, " Bach structured the cantata in seven

    psalm tone of the German Magnificat. He set the other movements for soloists as recitatives, arias and a duet. Using a Baroque instrumental ensemble of a trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo, the music expresses the different moods of the text, illustrating God's force and compassion. [...] the cantata's fifth movement, [...] a duet for alto and tenor on the biblical text with the cantus firmus played by trumpet and oboes [...]" has more problems (including not linking on first instance, using specialist jargon that can easily be avoided, interpretations without in-text mentioning of the author of such interpretations) and is not particularly shorter. Example: "cantus firmus", a quite specialist concept, can easily be avoided in the lead section as the draft shows. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Please look up what's appropriate, 50% seems way to high. I've seen a FAC review (of a short article like this one) where a limit of 2 paragraphs was requested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "50%":

    • "Context" topics: 7 paragraphs in one section (with 2 subsections)
    • Description of the composition: 10 paragraphs in one section (with 9 subsections)
    • "Reception" topics: 5 paragraphs in 2 sections

    So, calculated by prose paragraphs (which of course don't have the same length) it is somewhat under 50% (10 out of 22 paragraphs); by separate section titles it is way over 50% (10 out of 15). Devoting around 25% of the lead section to that content doesn't seem exaggerated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyhow, shortened the third paragraph a bit in my proposal above, so, unless I'm missing something, this suggestion is taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formal note: "sixth movement" not "6th movement". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A proposal for a replacement of the last paragraph of the intro, regarding reception-related topics, is still in preliminary stages and worked on at the article talk page: it is too dependent on how article content on publication/recordings/reception will evolve (see undecided suggestions below) in order too be presented here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Partially introduced into the article (with some additional rephrasing). This, however, far from concludes the work which imho is necessary to get this article up to FA grade (missing references, missing examples, various unresolved issues, etc.). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Two reviewers who wrote FAs before (one of them more than 100) approved this version. I don't know if I should call them back and ask if they also approve the changes since. - Repeating: I have to prepare Pentecost, and there's no deadline. I have no time to follow all your changes, sorry, but can tell you that I believe (to give just one example) that the addition of BWV 147a and a link to Advent don't help to understand BWV 10, nor does BWV 4, as another example. It's difficult for me to find a ref in Bibliography, split in so many sections. Do you know any FA that has it like that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Re. "... call them back and ask if they also approve the changes since" – see my reply to Yunshui below. I don't think we should notify previous contributors of this FAC at every turn: when content and sourcing have settled pinging them once, from this page, would suffice imho, to see whether they want to amend their initial report.

  Re. "... and there's no deadline" – completely agree.

  Re. "... a link to Advent ..." and "... nor does BWV 4 ..." – no clue what you're talking about: Advent isn't linked, BWV 4 isn't mentioned in the article.

  Re. "... Bibliography, split in so many sections ..." – yes, that was getting unwieldy, simplified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other suggestions:
    1. The article doesn't explain very clearly why Luther's German Magnificat isn't a chorale (it being in a bible translation is hardly the reason). FYI: Metre (hymn) explains that a hymn (or chorale) has a metre: Luther's German Magnificat has no such metre for the text, nor has the melody to which it is sung a metre in the musical sense. Hence the melody also has no Zahn number, while it is in fact a reciting tone (reciting tones have no metrical structure). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       This point needs attention: the intro has been changed twice now regarding this (change 1 – comment 1; change 2 – comment 2)... I suppose these changes without understanding what this is about will keep recurring until the explanation in the body of the article is updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    2. Language should be clearer in the article: Luther's German Magnificat is called a chorale throughout, apart from the single sentence that says it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Good idea, I used now "reciting tone", alternatively with "psalm tone" (which was already there), and placed "chorale" in quotation marks to indicate it's not strictly a chorale. Do you have a suggestion for saying that Bach (of course) gave the psalm tone a meter? Can we still say "chorale fantasia"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Another point: while the English "chorale" seems not to include Luther's German Magnificat, the German Choral does, just compare Gregorianischer Choral [de], Choralbuch [de], Choralschola etc. That is the the culture in which Bach composed. Could that be explained? If yes, the lead seems not the right place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Zahn classified what he called "Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder", giving each a number. Luther's German Magnificat (and its melody) is not included in that classification. So one can safely say that it is not a "deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied", in other words (while it is certainly "deutsch" and "evangelisch"), not a chorale. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Do you realize that the German word Choral is not restricted to "German Protestant Hymn" (Deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied) but includes Latin chant before the Reformation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Dürr/Jones 2006, p. 32: "In ... BWV 10 ... the melody is no longer that of a hymn ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Re. "... the German word Choral ..." (above), "... CPE regarded it as a Choralgesang ..." ([3]), etc.: I don't think we need to be solving the intricacies of (18th-cenury) German language here, but create an English-language narrative that is clear for 21st-century readers (whether they are experienced in the subject matter or not – understanding German is not a prerequisite):

       • Luther's "Meine Seele erhebt den Herren" (German Magnificat) is, in English, "not a (Protestant) hymn"; in German: "... kein (evangelisches) Kirchenlied ..."
       • The cantata's last movement, "Lob und Preis sei Gott dem Vater" (doxology), first published as "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren", is, in English, a "chorale"; in German: "Choral" (e.g. [4]).

       Afaik, in the context of modern Bach studies, "(Protestant) hymn" and "chorale" are used interchangeably

       I expect to see two things in the article, i.e. (1) clear, non-confusing terminology used throughout; (2) an explanation *why* Luther's German Magnificat is not a hymn/Kirchenlied (in other words: what did Bach do to turn something that was not a hymn into something that is a hymn – compare Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt where a 16th-century transformation of another "melody from Latin religious chant" to a Lutheran chorale is explained). For the second maybe an additional search for appropriate sources is needed. For clarity, "... the "chorale" tune ..." (currently in the article) misses the clarity I expect per (1) above, and lacks the explanation I expect per (2). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    3. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
    4. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
    5. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
    6. "Selected recordings" section
       1. I don't like to see the word "Selected" in a section title: a "selection" is always someone's POV, thus in most cases not compatible with the
          WP:NPOV content policy. Suggested title for such a section: either "Discography" or "Recordings". Neither or these titles suggests necessarily a full list of *all* recordings, but it is more open-ended for future updates. Also: what if the list of recordings happens to be "complete"? – calling it a "selection" seems silly then. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for the actual guidance of what I'm trying to explain in short with my own words here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]

          Selected recordings is the present title in all Bach cantata articles (including FA and GA) where the listing is not complete. Would you have a better suggestion? Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete. I'd be interested what others think. The selection here (of those listed by Bach-Cantatas) was made because a complete list seems too long. The criterion is simply that the conductor is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The more complete listing from Bach-Cantatas is easily seen and can be compared, and more added, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          Re. "Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete" – imho your understanding is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       2. The current selection criterion for inclusion in the list (being listed "on the Bach-Cantatas website") is imho a wrong approach. Each listed recording should have its own reference, and for a FA candidate I expect more than a copy-paste (with added layout and wikilinks) of a list found elsewhere on the web. Has none of these recordings, for instance, been discussed in a magazine like Gramophone? Wikipedia should give more information than just a plain list copied from elsewhere (see e.g. the 7th point of
          WP:NOTDIRECTORY) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]

          The section appears like that in most other articles on Bach cantatas, including FA (exception BWV 4) and GA. It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles. It would be no problem to give each line it's reference, but seems needlessly complicated. - What would a review add? Should we link to the complete cycles of some of the conductors? It's in Bach cantata, and some have their own articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          Re. "It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles" – too much of a "let's create a

          WP:LINKFARM" argument to my taste. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

          ]

          Revisiting this suggestion: the situation is a bit more complicated (and worse) than I thought: a Wikipedia editor selected (without clear selection criteria) 15 recordings out of the 21 at the Bach cantatas website:

          1. It is wrong to base a selection on a single source (e.g. this webpage lists over 30: some are obviously re-issues, but the Bach-Cantatas website is not the only one listing recordings) – this is what I already wrote about above
          2. Any list should have clear inclusion criteria: "some Wikipedia editor made a selection" is the opposite of such clearly established criteria (e.g. if in 2018 there is a new recording issued an editor shouldn't have to wait until the Bach-Cantatas website is updated before they can add it to the list in Wikipedia) – for that that reason I added a tag to the article ([5] oops, made a typo in the edit summary, this is in fact additional suggestion No. 6). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

             See above: the selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor. - The listing is compatible with other FA articles. - I don't see anybody writing a PDF of that list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

             Re. "selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor":

             • These selection criteria are not clear for the reader of the article (thus falling short of the guidance on introductory paragraphs for lists)
             • Notability is not "inherited" (I): the most famous conductor does not necessarily make the most memorable recording for every work they have on their repertoire, or the other way around: the most memorable recording is not necessarily made by the conductor that is over-all most famous.
             • Notability is not "inherited" (II): this is also a Wikipedia principle regarding notability (see e.g. WP:Notability), thus this would make a bad selection criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
             • Further, was Ton Koopman a famous conductor in the 20th century (his 1999 recording is listed) but no longer in the 21st century (his 2003 recording is not listed)? – so the criterion, besides being questionable, further also appears to have been applied subjectively... --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

             You may not like it but the way to present the recordings has a tradition of more than ten years (long before I edited), compare 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015. If you want to change it, approach the project. This article should be consistent with other articles on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

             Re. "the recordings have been listed in such a way for more than ten years" ([6]) – the rules for such lists have changed a lot in the last 10 years, so much so that until this morning a relevant policy page linked to sections in guidance which no longer exist (instead of linking to the up-to-date guidance). The discography section has to conform to current guidelines when considering a FA promotion today. Whether or not it conforms to former or outdated guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style – I don't see why one should talk to a project that declares its guidance dormant while policy- and guideline-level guidance is available) is not the assessment we're making today. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

             Several FAs are like this (I don't count, but must be more than five, some listed above, for comparison). Around 150 cantatas are like this. I talk about tradition and consistency for the reader. If we get new rules which I think are detrimental for the reader, I will question them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       3. The last column of the table ("Instr.") gives in fact additional information, not found on the Bach-Cantatas webpage. That information is however completely unreferenced (as the only reference for the entire section is to that Bach-Cantatas webpage). Hence my suggestion to give individual references per row, in which case the reference should at least cover all information of the row. However, see also my suggestion in 7.2 below if wanting to avoid footnotes in the table itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          The information about period instruments is taken from the article about the ensemble. References could be copied from there, but it seems blowing up the sourcing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Most of my line of approach above can be summarized by pointing out that the current "Selected recordings" section seems to be failing

       Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines (e.g. "...it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points", see also suggestion 7.2 below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

       ]

       Proposal for the intro of the Recordings section (which I would rename to "Concert performances and recordings"):

       In 1963

       Bach Cantata Pilgrimage. A recording with the Regensburger Domspatzen was released in 2001. Sigiswald Kuijken included the cantata in his Cantatas for the Complete Liturgical Year series.^[1][2][3]

       Most recordings present BWV 10 along other German cantatas. In concert programs and recordings BWV 10 has also been combined with Latin Magnificat settings. Münchinger's 1968 recording and Rotzsch's 1978 recording combined BWV 10 with Bach's Latin Magnificat (BWV 243). Also Michael Gielen's concert at the 1991 Bodenseefestival combined Bach's German and Latin Magnificat. Performances by Roland Büchner in 2000 and by Ton Koopman in 2003 combined the cantata with the 1723 Christmas version of Bach's Magnificat (BWV 243a). Koopman additionally featured the Christmas version of Kuhnau's Magnificat in the same concert. According to Bach scholar Yo Tomita the program of that concert added another historical dimension, allowing to compare two works by Bach with a similar composition by his predecessor as Thomaskantor. A 2007 concert at the Indiana University combined Bach's German cantata with a 2005 Magnificat by Sven-David Sandström.^[1][4][5][6]

       This proposal would also cover what was suggested in 7.2 below; however, referencing in the above proposal may need further attention, see related discussions elsewhere in this section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    7. Provisions for a table-less layout: Wikipedia's PDF export function omits all tables, so it makes sense to check whether the article would work sufficiently well without them. I have two suggestions in that respect:
       1. Explanations about tables that are in the article (a table's legend, or, for instance the second paragraph of Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#Structure and scoring: "In the following table ... ") can be enveloped in an otherwise invisible table so that the table-less version of the article doesn't give an explanation about a "table" that isn't there. Here is the syntax that can be used:

          {|
|-
...[table explanation goes here]...
|}

       2. A table's content can be summarized (with adequate references) outside the table's syntax: for instance the section on recordings can have an introduction mentioning some recordings that have additional sources (that is outside being listed at the Bach-Cantatas website). This has a double advantage: the table doesn't need to be cluttered with footnotes, and in those layouts where no tables are shown at least the recordings that received most press coverage are mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    8. The reception of a piece is about more than scores (manuscripts + editions) and recordings. E.g. at the 2003
       BWV 243a and a Magnificat by Bach's predecessor Kuhnau) in a concert. A video recording of that concert was released in 2004. Both the 2003 concert (e.g. Yo Tomita) and the recording (e.g. Klassik.Com) were reviewed. The DVD is currently not selected for inclusion in Wikipedia's list. IMHO the BWV 10 article currently misses a "Reception" section where the reception topics can be treated more comprehensively than just "scores" and "recordings". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
       ]

       What would be interesting would be reception of the piece when it was first performed. - The reception by Bach scholars is part of the Music section. - The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music. - No other Bach cantata article has a reception section, but feel to write one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Re. "The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music": the same can be said about Scheibe's 1737 review of Bach's own performance – this has nothing to do with "in our time". The topic of reception is, in part, about how taste w.r.t. a piece evolves over time. This includes whether a specific performance of the piece receives attention via independent reviews in reliable sources (a new recording that is completely ignored in the press is thus somewhat less significant for reception history, except maybe for number of copies sold). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    9. [7] – is this German version of the Gloria Patri specifically Luther's (it is not a part of Luke 1:46–55)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       I was sure that the Kleine Doxology was also translated by Luther, as so many other texts, but found no support so far. I asked an expert, User:Rabanus Flavus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    10. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
    11. Re. "... the ref that I believe is best in detail and accuracy is: [8]. If you find a recording that is not in, write to Mr. Oron, and will include it." ([9]) – I too think that Mr. Oron's website is a great resource. However, in Wikipedia surroundings, it is not the most unquestionable of reliable sources:
        • The website hosts a lot of copyvio material. When using the website it is often a thin line not to cross the Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works policy (e.g. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...")
        • As the website contains material copied from Wikipedia there's a danger of
          WP:CIRCULAR
          references to it (at least in one instance I had to remove material from Wikipedia while it was referenced exclusively to Mr. Oron's site, where it was referenced exclusively to Wikipedia...)
        • Mr. Oron's website isn't always clear about its sources (e.g. "2^nd performance: 1740-1747 - Leipzig", see suggestion No. 5 above). Some of its content is referenced to discussion pages (see next point)
        • The website's discussion pages are somewhere in between of "peer review" (which would indicate reliability) and "user-generated content" (generally insufficient to be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia) – it is not always clear which one of these applies foremost.
        • Its original content is generally "self-published" (Mr. Oron being as well author, editor and publisher of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page) –
          WP:ABOUTSELF
          is the policy governing the use of self-published sources, indicating that original content of the Website can not be used in Wikipedia (unless in some cases where Mr. Oron writes about himself)
        • The website occasionally contains inaccuracies (if not errors), which I found out by consulting reliable sources and comparing these to the website's content.
        • PS: the reason I don't usually "write to Mr. Oron" is that I'm foremost a Wikipedia editor, not wanting to create more
          WP:CIRCULAR content on the other website. Each their own responsibility: the more Mr. Oron's website becomes reliable without our help, the more we can use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]

          Short answer: I don't speak about the website as a whole, but selectively the recordings. I know no other sources going after such details about instrumentalists, places of recording, liner notes etc. For biographies, I only reference the site (usually as a second ref, not a single) because it's English, which is more accessable to readers of the English Wikipedia than the German Großes Sängerlexikon, for example. Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata? I will only reply to questions about the cantata article from now on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          Re. "Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata?" – Yes, please. My suggestion above was so elaborate because you kept bringing up "In previous FAs on the topic, ..." or similar procedures not relating to this cantata (the last time in connection with M. Oron's website: [10]). I don't care how many GAs or FAs passed with references to other pages of Mr. Oron's website: these other GA/FA procedures are not a justification of whatever. That being said: whether or not, and if so under which circumstances, http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm can be used as a reference for Wikipedia's BWV 10 article is entirely within the confines of this FAC deliberation. E.g., linking to that webpage is linking to a website (and page!) that contains copyvio material – no amount of "previous FAs" will make that risk of infringing on Wikipedia's copyrights policy via the BWV 10 page go away. Now is the time to assess that risk. Similar for the other points above: only the second bullet doesn't seem directly applicable to the BWV10.htm page at Mr. Oron's website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          In the last FAC, I was asked to mention similar articles as a help for new reviewers ("Well, that's what I was looking for - if there are other FA Bach cantata pages"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          Fair enough. At least partially explains why some of the more unfortunate idiosyncracies have become so difficult to root out in this collection of FA articles. Can we return now to the assessment of the use of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page in the BWV 10 article? My reply to your latest suggestion regarding the discography section depends on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          Re. ... In the last FAC ... (please click the link, it is not the same "In the last FAC" as above) – Allow me to compare to another FA: Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4#Bach's early cantatas is a much more elaborate context section than what I'm preparing now. Even after the content of that section was spun out to another article, it appeared impossible to condense that Bach cantata article section WP:Summary style-wise. In sum:

          • I'm still all but impressed by "former GA/FA" type of evidence: it can go in completely opposite directions; "Fair enough" in my comment above refers to not holding the nom accountable for these rampant comparisons, not to me having changed in any way as to how little impression these comparisons make on me. My assessment in this FAC is based on my own insights regarding what would be best for this article, insights which all things compared seem much closer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than assessments merging an amalgam of fortunate and less fortunate "habits" from one FA to the next.
          • If and when this article would be FA approved its content on how it relates to nearby Magnificats and Visitation cantatas should have about the same depth whether or not a separate article on that topic exists: once it would have FA status I suppose it would be nearly impossible to fundamentally change the breadth of the coverage of these relations to other compositions. I'm working on a treatment in around three paragraphs, which would absorb some content now elsewhere in the article (the net expansion of the article maybe not more than one paragraph). My objective is that once inserted into the article such paragraphs wouldn't need fundamental change, like neither Bach's church music in Latin#Magnificat settings nor Magnificat (Bach)#Other Magnificats by Bach? nor Church cantata (Bach)#Visitation would need to be fundamentally rewritten, in the eventuality of a separate article exclusively devoted to these relations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          Re. "...liner notes..." – two (potential) problems:

          • The BWV 10 article currently links directly to several PDFs of such liner notes hosted at the BC-website. Might be a copyright problem. I expect this to be cleared by those more experienced in guarding over whether or not Wikipedia crosses a line here that should better not be crossed copyright-wise, before we continue to provide these links.
          • In articles on Bach-compositions liner notes might not pass
            WP:RSN in that respect), even when written by established Bach-scholars. I understand the advantage of them being generally in English, and not in German, like much of the high-end scholarship on Bach. Nonetheless, content of the article should imho preferably be referenced to writings with a solid scholarly publication process ("peer review" is generally missing for liner notes, and more than often when a German scholar writes liner notes the English translation of these notes can be quite mangled, they may be unclear as to where the material derives from—as I already mentioned in suggestion 5.2 above—, etc), whatever the language of the more solid source. Liner notes can be mentioned (even linked if copyright-cleared per the previous point) in addition to the sources with a more solid publication process. The easiness of linking to liner notes sometimes prevents looking up in more solid sources (I did a few suggestions above but see no reaction to these suggestions yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
            ]

            The liner notes by John Eliot Gardiner and Klaus Hofmann have been regarded as reliable in the past. Compare this GA review by Drmies who recommended to follow Hofmann. - I could avoid the link, but think it's a disservice to the reader to not supply what the author wrote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

            Was that before or after liner notes were rejected for use in articles on compositions by J. S. Bach at

            verified to high-end scholarly sources (whatever the language they are written in). I'd keep the more accessible/popular sources too (contrary to what was suggested at the "nasty" RSN on this topic), but that doesn't diminish the need to have the complete article covered by more solid sourcing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

            ]

            I don't talk about liner notes in general, but these specific ones, by a conductor who performed all cantatas, and one of the authorities on Bach [11]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

            Yes I know. Maybe the best way forward is to take this source, with all the content referenced to it in the BWV 10 article, to WP:RSN? Then there will be no discussion afterwards, when an incompatible idiosyncratic approach would board the article later (there are two opposing idiosyncratic approaches: one that references large portions of Bach composition articles to liner notes, and an opposing one that doesn't accept a single one of such references: I'm in the middle, i.e., apply

            WP:V as elsewhere, and if you're not sure whether a source is used correctly, then take it to WP:RSN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

            ]

            Source reviews have been performed in recent years:

            • BWV 172 by Nikkimaria, who saw Bach Cantatas Website as a convenience, to be better replaced by the original, which in BWV 10 I did for Gardiner.
            • BWV 22 (2015) by Prhartcom.
            • BWV 165 (2015) by Nikkimaria.
            • BWV 4 (2016) by Brianboulton.
            • BWV 161 (2015) by Wehwalt.

            A source review is likely to be requested for this nomination as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

            @Gerda Arendt: please discontinue selectively pinging editors who supported your earlier FAC nominations. If you'd have listed the earlier FAC archives without pinging these editors I could have continued to just be unimpressed for the reasons I explained above: the added pings leave me negatively impressed. I'd advise against any partisan notifications regarding this FAC assessment. It is not because my earlier mentioning of this same point regarding this same FAC was worded too strong that its message would have been invalid. All of this only brings us further away from the issues in cue to be addressed in this FAC, instead of bringing us nearer to their solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

            When I talk about users I also ping them, not talking behind their back. Most of them watch this page anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

            Then don't talk about users (why would one need to talk about users other than the one one is talking with?) – it seems to only stall addressing the issues raised in the current FAC. I seemed to be perfectly capable of explaining such issues without talking about anyone beyond their back. Same goes, I'm sure, for addressing these issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    12. Wikipedia:In-text attribution
        (please take a look at that guidance, I use its concepts in what I write below)

        • In-text attributions to Hofmann:
          1. "This gospel reading is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes, a biblical episode that is often represented in art, and in music where it has become a traditional part of Vesper services"

             ✗ – somewhat misleading in the sense of the third example of the guidance: all parts of this sentence are fairly common knowledge, not as if Hofmann makes a contention that sets him apart from other scholars in the field. Looks a bit like

             WP:SAID

             .

          2. "Hofmann notes that it is the first soprano aria in the chorale cantata cycle"

             ✗ – same three issues as previous: fact not depending on the interpretation of the author

          3. "Hofmann interprets the bass line of "emphatic downward semitone intervals" as "sighs of divine mercy""

             ✓ – per first example of guidance

          4. "Hofmann describes the string music as "lively, shimmering chords""

             ✗ – not so bad as the first two above, but I would think this is a fairly standard description of the string music of this section: doesn't seem contentious to describe it as "lively" nor as "chords" – maybe the "shimmering" is a somewhat more exceptional qualifier, but not enough to require in-text attribution imho

        • In-text attributions to Gardiner:
          1. "John Eliot Gardiner, who conducted the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, notes about these first cantatas of the chorale cantata cycle: "Together they make a fascinating and contrasted portfolio of choral fantasia openings.""

             ✗ – OK for the in-text attribution guidance, but not, as far as I'm concerned, for the name-dropping (Bach Cantata Pilgrimage) and the verb failing

             WP:SAID

        • In-text attributions to Dürr:
          1. "The following table is based on the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr who notes: "At the beginning of the cycle of chorale cantatas we find–uniquely within Bach's output–the rudiments of cyclical composition"."

             ✗ –

             WP:SAID

             issue, and topic of the first half of the sentence too disconnected from that of the second half (not exactly the second example of the in-text guidance but somewhat similar:

             • either the data in the table can be confirmed by multiple sources (then no in-text attribution but only a reference to Dürr is sufficient) or Dürr contends something that can not be corroborated elsewhere (then this sort of formulation would indicate a kind of list copyright infringement)
             • second half of the sentence is not about factual data, but an interpretation of the author: this doesn't align too well with the first half of the sentence (but in-line attribution for this half of the sentence would be correct).

          2. "The keys and time signatures are taken from the book by Bach scholar Alfred Dürr, using the symbol for common time (4/4)"

             ✗ – Dürr was already introduced as "Bach Scholar", doing that twice seems exaggerated, and confirms the impression that this is again a name-dropping issue, especially as no in-line attribution to Dürr seems necessary here for the same reasons as the first half-sentence of the previous example

        • In-text attributions to Wolff:
          1. "... a project that the Bach scholar Christoph Wolff calls "fascinating" and "unprecedented""

             ✓ – although maybe a bit disconnected from the topic of the first half of the sentence

          2. "Wolff sees a systematic approach, especially in the four cantatas beginning the cycle, to be followed by Meine Seel erhebt den Herren as the fifth"

             ✗ – if Wolff only groups the first four, then the second half of the sentence is too disconnected (gives the impression that Wolff saw this as the fifth of the same set which either is true, and then the sentence should be worded differently, or not, then it is somewhat the problem as illustrated by the 2nd example of the in-line attribution guidance – although, again, not exactly as in that example)

        • In-text attributions to Spitta: I introduced one for this author (description of 3rd movment), so I won't comment on that one here, but please check whether it conforms to the guidance.
        • In-text attributions to Tomita: I introduced one for this author (2nd paragraph of Concerts&Recordings section), so I won't comment on that one here, but please check whether it conforms to the guidance.
        • Sentences that seem to be lacking in-line attribution (not all editors would interpret in the same way, for instance that a specific musical figure is necessarily to be seen as the expression of a specific emotion or religious concept,):
          1. "... expressing praise for God's works in the first section, while the more reticent middle section covers thankfulness for his help in times of distress"

             ✗ – such direct linking of musical texture and which religious or emotional content it expresses needs to be either firmly rooted in the words of the libretto (then: explain) or needs an in-line attribution to the author who interpreted it thus.

          2. "The thought that God "also uses force with His arm" is expressed with emphasis..."

             ✗ – similar to previous: notwithstanding that here the libretto is quoted the reader is left unaware *how* the emphasis is expressed: triple fortissimo? trepidus? emphatic repeats? ... either explain or use an in-line attribution of the author who interpreted it thus (compare description of fourth movement: there the musical figures and their relation to the libretto text is clearly explaiined, so for the description of that movement I'd say: ✓)

          3. "... in both cases expressing mildness and compassion"

             ✗ – the connection between lyrics and musical techniques is again missing in the explanation: so either explain, or give an in-line attribution to the author who interpreted it thus.

          4. "... the added strings emphasize the importance of the promise kept"

             ✗ – the kind of interpretation that would need an in-line attribution to the author who said it thus. Many composers "add strings" at a certain point, in thousands of compositions: I don't think that every time that happens it signifies that these composers then "emphasize the importance of the promise kept" --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

             • Addressed the "Hofmann" and "Gardiner" issues mentioned above, and added {{non sequitur}} tags for the four last-mentioned passages that seem to be lacking a clearer explanation and/or an in-line attribution ([12]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    13. OCLC 978146515). Do we have the background on that? Maybe more something for the Meine Seele erhebt den Herren article, but I don't think the BWV 10 article should mention several times it's "Luther's" (without further explanation) when part of the literature would describe it as "Klug's". --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]