Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because 31 October, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, is approaching, and the article should be in best shape. It had many editors since its start in 2007.
Thanks, Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Some older questions from the article talk concern the images:
@ Gerda Arendt: please see what I said about talk page consensus before editing below. For images, where there's always a large factor of personal appreciation by editors (while most of it is neither necessarily policy-compliant nor necessarily policy-infringing), this is even a more appropriate approach: the main policy is WP:CONSENSUS. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments before commenting. |
Some possible options:
I can not suppress my disappointment that these issues of secondary importance (layout options are *always* of secondary importance compared to content issues) prevent a swift resolution of content issues. Layout options can almost never be tagged in mainspace (while their importance is so marginal in most cases, as it is here), and in the mean while there are legion tags on rather serious content issues. Really, I would be much more active in editing the article in mainspace if these all in all rather childish reiterations of layout option discussions could end: as long as they persist the editing environment is unstable and it seems best not to touch the mainspace article (unless, perhaps, with a ten-foot pole), in order not to get caught in the conundrum over the layout issues. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Francis Schonken proposed (compare Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10) to begin the lead with Bach's name, to not present a lot of German, then translation(s), then catalogue number, before finally arriving at something familiar. I support that. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"), BWV 80, is a chorale cantata for Reformation Day by Johann Sebastian Bach.
Johann Sebastian Bach composed the church cantata Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (A secure castle is our God), BWV 80 in Leipzig for Reformation Day.
Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"), BWV 80, is a chorale cantata for Reformation Day by Johann Sebastian Bach. He composed the church cantata in Leipzig for Reformation Day, 31 October. An early version (BWV 80b) of the work may have been written as early as 1723, and a later version with an extended chorale fantasia as the opening movement was possibly written in 1735. The cantata is based on Martin Luther's hymn " Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott".
So: I don't agree with the first paragraph. I'd try, suggesting to leave the tricky dating topic for later in the lead:
Johann Sebastian Bach composed the church cantata Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (A secure castle is our God), BWV 80, in Leipzig for Reformation Day, 31 October. The chorale cantata is based on Martin Luther's hymn " Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott". 31 October. Bach adapted an earlier cantata, Alles, was von Gott geboren, BWV 80a, composed in Weimar on a text by Salomon Franck, and developed at least two versions. The first of these, called BWV 80, is lost, and its dating is unclear. The final version, with an extended chorale fantasia as the opening movement, was possibly written in 1735, a year when Bach also composed oratorios.
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Starting my replies to Gerda's objections to the current version of the lead sentence
Today:
Bach reused for Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott a cantata in six movements on a text by Salomon Franck which he had composed in Weimar for Oculi, the third Sunday in Lent. He could not use this cantata for the same occasion in Leipzig because no cantatas were performed there during Lent, but it matched the anniversary of the Reformation well, as two movements already contained Luther's hymn. In Leipzig, with an additional opening movement and another inserted chorale setting, he presented the text of all four stanzas of the hymn unchanged.
I suggest to not present the details about the Weimar work's occasion in this lead. It can be in the body, and is in the linked article:
Two movements of the Weimar cantata, written for a Sunday in Lent, contained already two stanzas of Luther's hymn, providing a good base for celebrating the Reformation. In Leipzig, with an additional opening movement and another inserted chorale setting, Bach presented the text of all four stanzas of the hymn unchanged. Franck's text could be retained with minor changes.
Just a starting point. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Now that the lead sentence appears temporarily settled, can we resume work on the remainder of the lead section? Tx. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Some suggestions:
Are there any sources that could fill in the background here?
Another suggestion is about the current 3rd paragraph of the section: throughout the whole paragraph it is about Wolff says so and so; according to Wolff this and that — If it is important to note for nearly every sentence that the information comes from Wolff, then there must be other scholars saying other things: why is nothing mentioned about these other scholars? E.g. the Bach Digital website thinks the 80b version no earlier than 1728, which is definitely different from Wolff's theories. Compare also Zedler 2011 not picking up on Wolff's 1991 speculations ( [3]). If I remember correctly, the Zwang brothers list the cantata as first performed on 31 October 1724, which would also be incompatible with Wolff's views. Also Dürr(/Jones) should be checked on the topic of this cantata and its variants. So the whole paragraph appears rather one-sided: is it possible to write this paragraph a bit more balanced (i.e. all major sources with their approach)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Another suggestion regarding this section regards its second sentence. It is currently in the format
The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the [Bible book of 1st reading], "[topic summary of 1st reading]" ([chapter and verse of 1st reading linking to KJV translation]), and from the [Bible book of 2nd reading], [topic summary of 2nd reading] ([chapter and verse of 2nd reading linking to KJV translation]).[reference to Dürr(/Jones)]
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
My two principal issues regarding the section remain:
IMHO, both of these issues are epitomised in the current second sentence:
The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, "An injunction to steadfastness against the Adversary" [1] ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3–8), and from the Book of Revelation, "The everlasting Gospel: fear and honour God" [1] ( Revelation 14:6–8).
Neither "An injunction to steadfastness against the Adversary" nor "The everlasting Gospel: fear and honour God" seem to have any relation whatsoever to the "history" or the "words" of the cantata, while the basic context of what a Reformation Feast in Bach's Leipzig meant is missing (problem #2); The sentence is the opposite of fluent, compelling prose, now acerbated with two (identical) mid-sentence references: two separate sentences, each with the quote at the end, each followed by a reference for the whole sentence is not hard to implement, and would make it far more readable (problem #1). I'll add a {{ Copy edit}} tag for this issue until someone wants to attend to it (no prejudice against inviting the group of copy-editors at Wikipedia). For clarity: it's not only the second sentence of this section that is still wanting on both counts. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Further suggestions:
If I remember well this is the first Bach cantata published in the Bach Revival era. If I'm not erring the date can be found in Terry's introduction for his translation of Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art, and Work. That's something that merits mentioning in the lead section as far as I'm concerned. This fact not even being mentioned in the section on publication (which seems to suggest that BGA Vol. 18 was its first publication) should probably best be remedied ASAP. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Other suggestions regarding this section:
If we go for an integrated reception section (which seems accepted now?) I'd recommend to adopt the content of the current "Evaluation" subsection in a more chronological narrative. E.g. 19th century comments (Rochlitz, see above: first publication-related suggestions) should come before 20th-century evaluations (e.g. Wolff 1991), which should in turn come before 21st-century evaluations (e.g. Smith 2013). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this edit shouldn't be undone? I prefer both navboxes would be treated on equal footing. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The lead had a summary of publication from this edit which was described as a revert, but I can't find the paragraph in earlier versions. We could drop it or update it. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
A small suggestion regarding the Wolff 1991 source: all citations that refer to this book in the article are to the same essay, i.e. the 12th chapter, about BWV 80, pp. 152–161. I'd use the "|chapter= ..." and page range parameters in the {{ Cite book}} template that is used to present this source. Also, the link in that template could go to the first page of the chapter (152), not the third (154, as it is currently). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because 31 October, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, is approaching, and the article should be in best shape. It had many editors since its start in 2007.
Thanks, Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Some older questions from the article talk concern the images:
@ Gerda Arendt: please see what I said about talk page consensus before editing below. For images, where there's always a large factor of personal appreciation by editors (while most of it is neither necessarily policy-compliant nor necessarily policy-infringing), this is even a more appropriate approach: the main policy is WP:CONSENSUS. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments before commenting. |
Some possible options:
I can not suppress my disappointment that these issues of secondary importance (layout options are *always* of secondary importance compared to content issues) prevent a swift resolution of content issues. Layout options can almost never be tagged in mainspace (while their importance is so marginal in most cases, as it is here), and in the mean while there are legion tags on rather serious content issues. Really, I would be much more active in editing the article in mainspace if these all in all rather childish reiterations of layout option discussions could end: as long as they persist the editing environment is unstable and it seems best not to touch the mainspace article (unless, perhaps, with a ten-foot pole), in order not to get caught in the conundrum over the layout issues. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Francis Schonken proposed (compare Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10) to begin the lead with Bach's name, to not present a lot of German, then translation(s), then catalogue number, before finally arriving at something familiar. I support that. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"), BWV 80, is a chorale cantata for Reformation Day by Johann Sebastian Bach.
Johann Sebastian Bach composed the church cantata Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (A secure castle is our God), BWV 80 in Leipzig for Reformation Day.
Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"), BWV 80, is a chorale cantata for Reformation Day by Johann Sebastian Bach. He composed the church cantata in Leipzig for Reformation Day, 31 October. An early version (BWV 80b) of the work may have been written as early as 1723, and a later version with an extended chorale fantasia as the opening movement was possibly written in 1735. The cantata is based on Martin Luther's hymn " Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott".
So: I don't agree with the first paragraph. I'd try, suggesting to leave the tricky dating topic for later in the lead:
Johann Sebastian Bach composed the church cantata Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (A secure castle is our God), BWV 80, in Leipzig for Reformation Day, 31 October. The chorale cantata is based on Martin Luther's hymn " Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott". 31 October. Bach adapted an earlier cantata, Alles, was von Gott geboren, BWV 80a, composed in Weimar on a text by Salomon Franck, and developed at least two versions. The first of these, called BWV 80, is lost, and its dating is unclear. The final version, with an extended chorale fantasia as the opening movement, was possibly written in 1735, a year when Bach also composed oratorios.
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Starting my replies to Gerda's objections to the current version of the lead sentence
Today:
Bach reused for Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott a cantata in six movements on a text by Salomon Franck which he had composed in Weimar for Oculi, the third Sunday in Lent. He could not use this cantata for the same occasion in Leipzig because no cantatas were performed there during Lent, but it matched the anniversary of the Reformation well, as two movements already contained Luther's hymn. In Leipzig, with an additional opening movement and another inserted chorale setting, he presented the text of all four stanzas of the hymn unchanged.
I suggest to not present the details about the Weimar work's occasion in this lead. It can be in the body, and is in the linked article:
Two movements of the Weimar cantata, written for a Sunday in Lent, contained already two stanzas of Luther's hymn, providing a good base for celebrating the Reformation. In Leipzig, with an additional opening movement and another inserted chorale setting, Bach presented the text of all four stanzas of the hymn unchanged. Franck's text could be retained with minor changes.
Just a starting point. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Now that the lead sentence appears temporarily settled, can we resume work on the remainder of the lead section? Tx. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Some suggestions:
Are there any sources that could fill in the background here?
Another suggestion is about the current 3rd paragraph of the section: throughout the whole paragraph it is about Wolff says so and so; according to Wolff this and that — If it is important to note for nearly every sentence that the information comes from Wolff, then there must be other scholars saying other things: why is nothing mentioned about these other scholars? E.g. the Bach Digital website thinks the 80b version no earlier than 1728, which is definitely different from Wolff's theories. Compare also Zedler 2011 not picking up on Wolff's 1991 speculations ( [3]). If I remember correctly, the Zwang brothers list the cantata as first performed on 31 October 1724, which would also be incompatible with Wolff's views. Also Dürr(/Jones) should be checked on the topic of this cantata and its variants. So the whole paragraph appears rather one-sided: is it possible to write this paragraph a bit more balanced (i.e. all major sources with their approach)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Another suggestion regarding this section regards its second sentence. It is currently in the format
The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the [Bible book of 1st reading], "[topic summary of 1st reading]" ([chapter and verse of 1st reading linking to KJV translation]), and from the [Bible book of 2nd reading], [topic summary of 2nd reading] ([chapter and verse of 2nd reading linking to KJV translation]).[reference to Dürr(/Jones)]
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
My two principal issues regarding the section remain:
IMHO, both of these issues are epitomised in the current second sentence:
The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, "An injunction to steadfastness against the Adversary" [1] ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3–8), and from the Book of Revelation, "The everlasting Gospel: fear and honour God" [1] ( Revelation 14:6–8).
Neither "An injunction to steadfastness against the Adversary" nor "The everlasting Gospel: fear and honour God" seem to have any relation whatsoever to the "history" or the "words" of the cantata, while the basic context of what a Reformation Feast in Bach's Leipzig meant is missing (problem #2); The sentence is the opposite of fluent, compelling prose, now acerbated with two (identical) mid-sentence references: two separate sentences, each with the quote at the end, each followed by a reference for the whole sentence is not hard to implement, and would make it far more readable (problem #1). I'll add a {{ Copy edit}} tag for this issue until someone wants to attend to it (no prejudice against inviting the group of copy-editors at Wikipedia). For clarity: it's not only the second sentence of this section that is still wanting on both counts. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Further suggestions:
If I remember well this is the first Bach cantata published in the Bach Revival era. If I'm not erring the date can be found in Terry's introduction for his translation of Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art, and Work. That's something that merits mentioning in the lead section as far as I'm concerned. This fact not even being mentioned in the section on publication (which seems to suggest that BGA Vol. 18 was its first publication) should probably best be remedied ASAP. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Other suggestions regarding this section:
If we go for an integrated reception section (which seems accepted now?) I'd recommend to adopt the content of the current "Evaluation" subsection in a more chronological narrative. E.g. 19th century comments (Rochlitz, see above: first publication-related suggestions) should come before 20th-century evaluations (e.g. Wolff 1991), which should in turn come before 21st-century evaluations (e.g. Smith 2013). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this edit shouldn't be undone? I prefer both navboxes would be treated on equal footing. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The lead had a summary of publication from this edit which was described as a revert, but I can't find the paragraph in earlier versions. We could drop it or update it. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
A small suggestion regarding the Wolff 1991 source: all citations that refer to this book in the article are to the same essay, i.e. the 12th chapter, about BWV 80, pp. 152–161. I'd use the "|chapter= ..." and page range parameters in the {{ Cite book}} template that is used to present this source. Also, the link in that template could go to the first page of the chapter (152), not the third (154, as it is currently). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)