"

Example:
""The opening movement  is performed by all forceswith the exception of the recorders "" can be sourced to a score
""The opening movement  is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders "" (emhasis added) contains an interpretation which can not be sourced to a (primary source) score. Unless the editor of that score inserted a text note to that effect (or Bach wrote such note in his manuscript which I don't think is the case here). In that case the name of the editor needs to be given (the editor is the source, not the music Bach wrote down and which was transferred to a printed score), preferably also date of publication, etc.
I'd recommend to change all ""score"" references to a publicly available score (if possible). Then the interpretations that aren't directly clear from the music notes and accidentals on the page, get different references with named authors.

Anyhow, what is interpretation and what is non-interpretative deduction I can't check, while the references are made to a publication I currently have no access to.

More important is to understand what WP:PRIMARY is about, when writing an article. The answer above didn't put me at ease... so yes the dozens of references to the (Bärenreiter) ""score"" source need to be checked. I don't feel like putting the  template on top of the page while probably most of these are in order, but that's in fact what I should do until it is all checked. Now anyone can familiarize themselves with WP:PRIMARY and do the checking, but failing time and means and/or other candidates to do the checks, I'd have to put up  until it is done. (sorry I'm a bit uncompromising on this: DYK is mainpage exposure, WP:NOR is a fundamental policy and we can't have wide exposure to something blatantly going contrary to it.)   "