Talk:Magnificat (Bach)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 06:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Will review. More soonest. Tim riley talk 06:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Lead
  • WP:OVERLINK: "key" is linked twice in the lead.
  • link needed to the article on the E flat version
  • WP:LEAD: a lead must not contain information not substantiated in the main text. The statement that the work is among the composer's most popular is not backed up in the body of the article.
• Information box
  • link needed to the article on the E flat version
• History
  • As Rizzuti is a cited source for this and the companion article on the E flat version it seems odd, and confusing for our readers, to omit mention here of his contention about other possible feast days, mentioned in the other article.
  • "during a visit to the town" – a city, surely?
• Extended settings of the Magnificat
  • Overlink: Schütz
  • "practiced" – if this article is intended to be in BrEng the verb is spelled "practised".
  • Overlink: Pachelbel.
  • Easter: why link here rather than at first mention?
  • "pregnant of" – the Oxford English Dictionary's examples have the preposition as "with" rather than "of".
• The Visitation version(s)
  • "the very first version" – how is this different from "the first version"?
  • Overlink: Thomaskantor
• The Christmas interpolations
  • Overlink: vespers
  • The block quote is 261 words long. There is no problem about copyright on this occasion as the text is so old, but putting such a huge slab of someone else's prose in the middle of our article sticks out rather, especially on what seems to be a matter more relevant to the BWV 243a article than to this one.
• Other Magnificats by Bach?
  • "Bach's necrolog" – unhelpful use of obscure term, when the everyday "obituary" is available (and is indeed linked to from the word)
  • "A similar cantata…" – citation needed.
  • Overlink: Antonio Lotti
• Structure and movements
  • "Note that the numbering" – WP:EDITORIAL
  • "A performance of the Magnificat…" – the comma splice in the sentence should be either a semicolon or a full stop. The statements about timings could do with citations to a WP:RS.
• Scoring and key signature
  • Overlinks: tonic key and SSATB five-part choir
• Symmetrical structure
  • The whole of this section from the start to the top of the table is noticeably short of citations. Do refs 48 and 49 corroborate all the statements in these 600 words?
  • Table: not clear what the point is of having scoring details of the other version of the work (which are given in the companion article) in the article on the D major work. Confusing for the reader, and not easy on the eye on either of the screens I have viewed it on. [Later: I have tried a third screen, and the table is still no easier on the eye. Tim riley talk 11:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)]
  • Similarly in the (excellent) analysis of the various movements why drag in details of the interpolations in and orchestration of BWV 243a? This needs to be looked at carefully with GA criterion 3b in mind: we need to stay focused on the topic of BWV243.
  • Overlink: cantus firmus
• The hymns added in the Christmas 1723 version
  • Again, this seems to me to fall foul of GA criterion 3b. This information belongs (and is) in the article on BWV 243a and not here. That being so I refrain from listing the five overlinks in it.
• Reception history
  • Overlink: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.
  • If in BrEng, we need "unravelled" rather than "unraveled".
  • Carl Philipp Emanuel: the piping to CPE's Magnificat took me by surprise. As we have linked to the man already it will be less confusing to the reader if we leave his name out of the piping here.
• 20th century
  • Last sentence of first paragraph needs citations. Most of the second paragraph lacks citations, as do the first part of the third paragraph and most of the fourth.

There are the makings of a GA in this text, some of which is really excellent, but work is still needed. In particular, to meet the GA criteria the text needs to concentrate on BWV 243 and not keep straying off into details of the earlier work, and the uncited parts of the text need to be furnished with reliable sources.

I am putting the review on hold for a week to allow the nominator time to address these points. – Tim riley talk 10:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've started the processing of these recommendations, and will list questions here when they come up:
  • Re. "very" first version: I've tried to clarify by recasting the sentence somewhat [1] – However, not being a native English speaker language sensitivity may fail me whether this is an appropriate use of "very", and/or whether this clarifies Glöckners view sufficiently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Fine. My comments on the drafting points are merely suggestions: they don't affect the question of promotion to GA, where the criterion for prose is less demanding than that for FA. Tim riley talk 07:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Re. Rizutti: all in all Rizutti is a bit of a problematic source, which I only discovered when working with it. Is it because he's an Italian writing English? Is it because the intent of his piece is first and foremost a theological contemplation? I don't know but a remarkable error like his confusing of Samuel Scheidt and Johann Schein, conflating them into a non-existent Samuel Schein was a first red flag that triggered my attention (others are his all in all confusing treatment of the tonus peregrinus, not knowing when to choose "translation" or "paraphrase", giving the wrong melody for the "German"-Magificat, etc.) As a rule I wouldn't cite Rizutti without another source saying the same.

  For the "on which feasts was the Latin Magnificat performed?" question Rizutti in fact doesn't say anything himself, except that it is "controversial", and then adds to the confusion. This is the link to his piece, the content on the question is footnote 2 p. 3. Please take a look. I don't know what to make of the sentence starting with "Moreover, the list of performances identified by Stiller can be implemented if we include..." near the end of the footnote. What I understand from that footnote is that Christmas, Easter, Whitsunday/Pentecost, Purification, Annunciation and Visitation are uncontroversial. That can be referenced to the sources used in the article for that content. The other possible feasts for a Latin Magnificat seem to make little difference for the composition discussed in the article. The more important remark in the context is imho the one derived from Spitta, that Leipzig had an uncharacteristic large amount of Latin for a centre of Protestantism. If we want to list more feasts as possible candidates for Latin Magnificats, I'd try to find the sources Rizutti mentions and take it from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Re. city/town: I suppose I followed usage as in the sources I read, e.g. the English translation of Spitta referring to Leipzig most often as a "town" (Book 2, p. 276), and only in a few instances as a "city" (Book 2, p. 195) – I suppose this is a language sensitivity thing again, that maybe isn't comparable any more with the 19th-century when this translation was made. I propose to keep it with "town" as supported by that source, or is it best to follow a more modern usage? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd go for city, but it's your call. GA will not depend on it. Tim riley talk 07:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Re. excess BWV 243a material. Preliminary remark: the subject of this article is "Magnificat (Bach)", not "Magnificat in D major, BWV 243". As for its WP:BALASPS, the article tries to follow what the available sources do on average, that is: the sources that write about Bach's Magnificat in general, not about a particular version of the Magnificat. Some of these sources devote little attention to the E♭ version (Franz 1863 would be the most extreme example in that sense), but the bulk of them (Spitta, Steinberg, Marshall, Cantagrel, Dürr to name only a few) have extensive content on both versions when discussing Bach's Magnificat (including content on the Christmas interpolations). At the other extreme of Franz is probably Jenckins 2000 who has considerably more on the 243a version than on the D major version. Included in the scope of this article are the comparison between both versions, and covering the content of modern editions and performances that include transposed versions of the Christmas interpolations in the D major setting. That being said,
    1. The large Spitta quote is gone (it was supposed to explain Kindleinwiegen for which there exists a Wikipedia article now, that didn't exist yet at the time the quote was introduced – now a short sentence with a link to the new article suffises)
    2. the "comparison" table of the movements is slimmed to nine columns, I hope that it works better now on a variety of screens, and would like to hear about your perception in this regard.

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tim riley: pinging for the above questions. Once I know what to do with these I can complete the finetuning. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Just back from a week's absence. Shall deal with the above tomorrow. Regards. Tim riley talk 00:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for my delay. RL getting in the way, but I'll do my damndest to get back here today or tomorrow, Tim riley talk 16:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is looking much more like a GA. I'll give it another (final, let us hope) close reading today and report back here. Tim riley talk 07:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing comments

In my view there is still more material about the E flat version in the current article than I would expect to see – or, I think, than a reader interested in the Bach Magnificat would want to see – but I recognise that there is no monopoly of wisdom on this point. The table now looks clear on all three screens I use, and my comments on the drafting points are merely suggestions, to be acted on or not as the nominator thinks fit. That being so:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

If you intend to take the article on to FAC I strongly recommend going to peer review first. Tim riley talk 15:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)