# Talk:Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll finish this soon. JAGUAR  13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


### Initial comments
The lead is far too short per WP:LEADLENGTH; it needs to be at least two paragraphs long and must summarise the article
"This allows the work to be dated to 1707–08 the period when Bach was living in Mühlhausen" - semi colon needed between "08" and "the"
"but he seems to have had a good relationship with Eilmar" - I didn't see how this was relevant to the sentence and it's also a little confusing for it to be in present tense? I would suggest rephrasing this to although he seemed to have had a good relationship with Eilmar, but I don't know what context this is for
"on the assumption that it was composed not long after arrival" - arrival of what? His employment as an organist or his arrival in the city?
"However, some of Bach's early cantatas are difficult to date, and he may well have started" - informal, lose "well"
"His ability as a composer was recognised by the town council who paid for the printing of the 1708 cantata Gott ist mein Konig, BWV 71." - this needs a citation
"The editor was Wilhelm Rust" - this too is unsourced and needs a citation
"It is true that the structure of the cantata is in many ways unusual, compared to Bach's later cantatas" - this seems unencyclopaedic, did critics themselves think the structure was unusual? If so, you could change it to Some critics/name of critic thought that the structure of the cantata was unusual
Ref 13 is dead and redirects to the main page
The text is "aus der Tiefe" and not "aus der Tiefen", yet in every instance the incorrect text is used. Why is this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.225.60 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


### On hold
This isn't a bad article. The only issues that stand in the way of it becoming GA are the shortness of the lead, some minor prose issues and a couple of unencyclopaedic material I found. Perhaps Gerda could help you as I was told this is your first nomination! Once all of the above are clarified, I'll take another look, but the rest of the article is looking solid.  JAGUAR  13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments.  I have asked Gerda if she could have a look, and I have started amending the article.
1) lede is in process of being expanded.
2) I have reworded the sentence in question.
3) As regards the minister who commissioned the cantata I have put in some more about him and hope it is clearer now. The purpose of the cantata is a bit of a mystery, so I think it is useful to say what we know about him.
4) I have reworded the sentence in question.
7) Reference given.
8) I have deleted the sentence in question.
9 ) Url updated.
Thoughtfortheday (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying all of the above. I went through the article again and am happy that this meets the GA criteria. The lead has been expanded to a sufficient length and the prose is well written. Well done on all the work put into this! I understand how difficult it must be to find information on one of Bach's first cantatas.  JAGUAR  20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)