# Talk:Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

My second review for you; will start this tomorrow! --K. Peake 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward to this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


### Accompanying image and lead
Why does the img identify it as the Missa?
Shouldn't the word Mass begin with capitalisation?
Pipe Gloria to Gloria in excelsis Deo
"twelve parts for singers, and ten for" → "12 parts for singers and 10 for" per MOS:NUM, but are you sure the body sources 12 parts or did I just miss it?
"played a significant role" → "played an important role" to avoid repetitive wording with the body
"19th century: at the time" → "19th century; at the time"
"and proposed Antonio Lotti," → "proposing Antonio Lotti,"
"20th-century Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (BWV), it was" → "20th-century catalogue Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (BWV), BWV Anh. 167 was"
"and later as a" → "while later being classified as a"
"and Christoph Bernhard," → "with Christoph Bernhard,"
"were mentioned as its possible composer." → "being mentioned as possible composers."


### History
Mention Bach's full name on the img text and wikilink him
First para looks good!


#### Weimar
Pipe Ernest Augustus to Ernest Augustus I, Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach
Wikilink Saxe-Weimar
"Johann Sebastian Bach as court musician" → "Bach as a court musician"
"these in Weimar." → "these in the city."


#### Bach's manuscript
Are you sure the full Kyrie–Gloria Mass BWV Anh. 167 needs to be used here instead of the abbreviated version?
"part of that manuscript" → "part of the manuscript"
"found in that header" → "found in the header"
"and is considered an" → "with it being considered an"


#### Authorship
"Bach's authorship was" → "Johann Sebastian's authorship was" per MOS:SAMESURNAME
[10][14][15][16][17][18] is too many refs together; move some to appropriate areas of the sentence
"were mentioned as more likely composers" → "were mentioned as probable composers" unless the source compares them to the other two


### Structure and scoring
"in 17th- and" → "of 17th- and"
[9] does not mention G major for the composition, unless I click on the page for BWV 167
File looks good!
"that is, two groups of" → "consisting of two groups of"
"accompanied by a group of instrumentalists, the" → "are accompanied by a group of instrumentalists, with the"
Pipe string ensemble to String orchestra
Remove the hashtag from in A's pipe since that does not lead to a sub-section, plus A is at the top anyway
Pipe taille to Taille (instrument)
Same issue as before with [9], but not all of that is sourced by BMV 167's page either
None of the sentence is sourced by [21] and this is the [9] problem again
The double melody lines part does not appear to be sourced, unless my translator is faulty?
"and are thus no" → "with there thus being no"
Pipe Kammerton to Concert pitch
Pipe Chorton to A440 (pitch standard)
Remove wikilink on Kammerton
"customary in Bach's Weimar." → "customary in Johann Sebastian Bach's Weimar." because he is not the most recent person of this surname to be mentioned
[3] should be solely at the end of the para due to backing up both of the last two sentences
"the transcription of" → "with the transcription of"


#### Kyrie
Pipe adagio to Adagio (tempo) per MOS:LINK2SECT


#### Gloria
Pipe "Et in terra pax" to Gloria in excelsis Deo
Numerous parts of the opening sentence are not sourced, even when I click on the appropriate page(s) like the issue with [9]


### Reception
Soon (signing off since you were confused when I did not last time) --K. Peake 09:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is BWV Anh. 167 re-introduced at the start of this section?
"Johann Kirnberger, who had" → "Kirnberger, who had"
Wikilink Johann Kirnberger after the quote, as that is separate from the standard prose


#### First half of the 19th century
Pipe Bach reception to Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music
You should change the prose to "his biography of Bach," with the pipe
Wikilink Johann Nikolaus Forkel after the quote, per my earlier comment
Are you sure Gewandhaus should be italicised?
Wikilink Leipzig
[17][33] should only be after the quote, as that is his impressions described
Wikilink Johann Friedrich Rochlitz after the quote, per my earlier comment
"Although this title suggests" → "Although the title suggests"
The parts after the comma are not backed up by [16], even when I click on the other page there
The parts listed in the lines following are not backed up by [9] again
Remove pipe on Danish
Are you sure Berliner Singakademie should be italicised and this nor the Second World War part are sourced
"went lost in" → "went missing in"


#### Second half of the 19th century
"complete works of Johann Sebastian Bach" → "complete works of Bach"
Remove wikilink on Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe
The Rust explanation is not backed up by [16], even when I click on the composition's page
[14] does not back up the full quote (see above)
Wikilink Wilhelm Rust after the quote, per my earlier comment
"suggested Antonio Lotti as composer" → "suggested Lotti as composer"
"15 years later" → "15 years later,"
"compatible with Lotti's, and" → "compatible with Lotti's and"
Are you sure the volume info is sourced by [17]? Also, keep Bach as it is only if you are referring to the one most recently mentioned.


#### 20th century
"Johann Ludwig Bach or Antonio Lotti." → "Bach or Lotti." or keep the full name if my earlier comment does not apply
[38] should be solely at the end of the para due to backing up both of the last two sentences
"For BWV Anh. 167 this" → "For BWV Anh. 167, this"
Merge with the third para with the second one per size issues
"the New Bach Edition (NBE) decided," → "the New Bach Edition (NBE), decided"
"of the 9th volume" → "of the ninh volume" per MOS:NUM


#### 21st century
"this recording was re-issued in the 8" → "the recording was re-issued in the eight" with the wikilink


### References
Copyvio score looks great at 21.9%!!!


### Sources
#### By title
Good


#### By author
Either pipe Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe to Bach-Gesellschaft and remove the wikilink for Bach-Gesellschaft or solely wikilink the latter


### Further reading
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed; that was a quicker review than I expected! --K. Peake 12:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Accompanying image and lead",
"Missa" is a name variant, that is the Latin translation of "Mass" (in English); "Messa" (in Italian) and "Messe" (in German): I added a reference that uses the Latin name variant to the lead image caption. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. capitalization (or not) of mass/Mass: I'd say "the Liturgy of the Hours is a liturgy ...", and similarly "the ... Mass ..., BWV Anh. 167, is a mass composition ..." but I'm no authority on whether that is a correct (or at least an acceptable) capitalization or not. If someone can explain me how it should be capitalized I'd be all ears. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Gloria in excelsis Deo" – "Gloria in excelsis" is the more common expression, and to all extents and purposes unambiguous. There's no disadvantage in using redirect links, so ignoring this (and further) invitations to change them, unless where a solid rationale for such change is given. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "ten" and "twelve": if I remember correctly, I quoted the MOS:NUMERAL part of MOS:NUM on this in the previous GAN we were both involved in. Here it is again: "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (etc)", so no, afaics there is no reason to change "ten" or "twelve". The "twelve parts for singers" is indeed covered in the body of the article, see Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167#Structure and scoring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
addressed somewhat differently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
the recording and the (scholarly) re-attribution are quite unrelated (except for happening in the same century), so I addressed this somewhat differently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
see previous point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to comment that I was thinking the capitalisation should be there because you wrote "mass composition", also the numbers issue is prevalent because you use 22 in that sentence. --K. Peake 12:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Will look at these two points later again, first giving a first pass on the further list of remarks and suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Looking again:
Re. "I was thinking the capitalisation should be there because you wrote "mass composition"" – I don't understand this rationale. It's not because (in some circumstances) "Symphony" is capitalized, that therefore symphony orchestra (as a descriptive term) should be capitalized. So no, unless someone can explain this, so that I know how to apply this as a rule in the future, I see no reason to capitalize here, with what I know about English grammar. If you question my approach in the matter or would like to know what should be in Wikipedia's guidance about this, please raise at WT:MOS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Changed 22 to "twenty-two" per the fifth main bullet of MOS:NUMNOTES. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "History" – suggestion for section image caption implemented as proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Weimar": only the third point implemented, as Saxe-Weimar is a duchy, not a city: thus Weimar, the city where Bach was employed, is best linked, and linking the duchy too seems a bit exaggerated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Bach's manuscript":
rephrased without the full name of the composition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
split the sentence, which is maybe better. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Change Weimar to the duchy in the point where I initially said to change it to the city, then. --K. Peake 15:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
? Not sure what you suggest now. As I said, Weimar (the city) should be mentioned and linked: that's where Bach worked. The period Bach worked there is known as the composer's Weimar period (not as his Saxe-Weimar period). I see no reason to link the duchy article, nor to mention the duchy anywhere outside what is linked to the duke's article. To all extents and purposes, the duchy is a side-topic to this article, so remote that it does not need to be focused on here as far as I'm concerned. Why do you keep insisting on linking to this remote side-issue from this article, and mention it a second time outside the link to the duke's article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
It reads awkwardly writing "these in Weimar" at the end of the sentence when you have already used the name before this point. --K. Peake 16:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Will return to this later, continuing with the other points for now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I have now applied various adjustments to the paragraph, including splitting of sentences, etc, and would like to hear whether or not that suffices to address the issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Authorship":
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Moved one further down in the article (20th instead of 19th century), and another into the sentence, leaving four refs (all of which mention at least one alternative composer) where they were. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Structure and scoring":
Implemented as proposed, but imho "... a format customary of 17th- and 18th-century Protestantism" does not sound very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Page XL of the "Vorwort" (preface) of Vol. 41 of the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe has (where speaking about this composition) "... die Messe in G beginnt und mit ihren einzelnen Sätzen wie am Letzten Ende in G schliesst ..." – the linking to IMSLP for the "Vorwort" is not so straightforward while the linked page has all prefaces of all BGA volumes, and giving a direct link to any of these is not a stable URL. I recently discovered that another website (MDZ) has scans of BGA volumes too (without separating the preface from the rest of the volume), but searching for a precise BGA volume on that website is a rather haphazard undertaking. Anyway, the reference is correct, but may require going to a library if the current linking is too enigmatic. Don't know what you mean by "... I click on the page for BWV 167"? For clarity, BWV 167 (of no relevance to this page) is a composition unrelated to BWV Anh. 167 (the composition discussed in this article). If I've got some time left after the first pass through these remarks I'll see whether I can find the BGA volume on the MDZ site, or another reference that confirms the key of G major for all movements. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
—
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
No, a piped link without redirect has afaics no advantages over a redirect link without pipe. See also above.
changed the pipe link to transposing instrument (the list page has apparently changed to a table since I last visited it) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
See #2 above: the referenced content is indeed on the indicated page of the reference. BMV is of course even more unrelated.
(as a consequence of previous changes [21] became now [20]) – same solution though as explained in #2 above, except that the "Vorwort" is now of Vol. 11.1, and XVII the page containing the reference for the content.
The reference has (Kirnberger's note): "Bey dem zweiten Chor sind zweimal vier Singstimmen, sie / sind aber nicht verschieden, sondern nur als ripienstimmen, die zur / Abwechslung und zur Verstärkung des zweiten Chors da stehen." (emphasis added), which covers the referenced content , paraphrased from Kirnberger for better understanding by less specialized readers. I added a reference to the score, for those who read music and want to verify the contention as explained in different wordings.
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
No. See above about redirect links, and next point why in this case that would be particularly confusing (and in fact: incorrect)
Both Kammerton and Chorton are now redirects to specific sections on these pages. Should not link to either page directly (with a pipe), while that would imply that Kammerton = concert pitch = 440Hz = A440 (pitch standard) = Chorton, while they are of course not identical. Preferably Kammerton and Chorton would both become separate articles (instead of redirects), explaining this a bit clearer than the less-than-perfect summaries in both current pitch related pages. And you should really stop suggesting to avoid redirect links: when those articles would get written, the pipes you suggest would continue to lead to the wrong places (with the rather incomplete explanations) instead of the more to-the-point new pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Kyrie": suggestion implemented as proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Gloria":
I have the Et in terra pax redirect deep linked to Gloria in excelsis Deo#Present-day Latin text instead. See above for my stance on there being no need to avoid redirects. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(see above reply re. "Structure and scoring", #2): last paragraph on page XL of the reference from "Das Gloria tacet in der Handschrift ..." to the end of the page covers this. Also here, like "Structure and scoring", #11, rephrased for better understanding by a less specialized audience (e.g. that what is called "... Lücke..." by Dörffel refers to the intonation, not written out in the manuscript). Added a reference with a page link to the score, for clarity. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Complementing: there's also another paragraph mentioning the Gloria tacet in the middle of page XL of Dörffel's preface. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Reception": removed the redundant ", BWV Anh. 167,", and other points implemented as suggested. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "First half of the 19th century"
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
implemented somewhat different as proposed, keeping the link to Forkel's 19th-century title of the publication (the title of the Wikipedia page where this redirects to is that of Terry's expanded translation of the same). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
removed italicization. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(see above reply re. "Structure and scoring", #2): added the Rust 1862, p=XVII, reference in the sentence (Rust couldn't check whether the contentions contained in Schicht's Italian title were correct, while he had no access to the P 659 manuscript, so he mentioned his apprehension explicitly: "Die Richtigkeit dieser Angabe..."; Dörffel, who had access, see "Gegenwärtig ..." in the last paragraph of p. XXXIX in his preface, compared the manuscript with the first printed edition detailed the differences on p. XL of the same preface). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(see above reply re. "Structure and scoring", #2) For clarity (per point):
"... figuration of the basso continuo ..." → paragraph about "Generalbassbezifferung" in preface
"... bassoon ..." → diverse recurrences of "Fagotto" and "Fagotti" in Dörffel's preface
"... Gloria intonation ..." see above , my reply re. "Gloria", #2. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
when only removing the pipe it makes Danish link to a disambiguation page, so I suppose you meant that "Danish" shouldn't be linked: anyhow, I removed the linking altogether. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Removed italicization; the source has "seit Kriegsende verschollen" mentioned in "Provenance" entry. This, and other indications on that page of the reference, cover the entire sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Francis Schonken Regarding MOS:NUM, the issue is with areas like where you've wrote "9th volume of its second series" because this is spelling them out and using numbers when they are both of the same digits. Also, you have not fixed or replied to the sources point. --K. Peake 06:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: yes, as said, I'm working through all remarks in a "first pass" now, and will return to the ones that are not yet addressed satisfactorily in a second pass. On the other hand, please explain your "unless I click on the page for BWV 167" as I already asked before: I really don't get what you're trying to say here, and I suppose that until I do I can't adequately address your concerns regarding the BGA preface sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: I was referring to this with the page comment, plus should everything be done by now? --K. Peake 08:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Again scores:Ihr Menschen, rühmet Gottes Liebe, BWV 167 (Bach, Johann Sebastian) (=BWV 167) is completely unrelated to Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167 (=BWV Anh. 167). Two different Wikipedia pages! At IMSLP all editorial prefaces can be reached from the same page, linked as follows: "Vorwort" – Unless that link is used, you'd have to go to the library nearest to you that has a paper copy of the BGA edition, or find the BGA volumes elsewhere on the internet. But none of that denotes a problem with my BGA references as currently written in the BWV Anh. 167 article. Re. "should everything be done by now?" – see my latest updates to the article, and comments inserted above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Second half of the 19th century":
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Dörffel quoting Rust (i.e. the same quote as given with a translation in the Wikipedia article) is on p. XXXIX of Dörffel's preface. Since page XL of that preface is not really needed for this reference, I changed "|pp=XXXIX–XL" to "|p=XXXIX" in the sfn of that reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
See my reply to "Structure and scoring" #11 – the German quote is indeed on the indicated pages (unless if I made an error in copying this?). (note: through new updates to references, numbers of references as in your above comments seem to have (mostly?) redressed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC); updated: footnote numbers are again completely different from those used in Kyle's original remarks. 08:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(implemented as proposed) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, "Schlussband" translates as "closing volume". There's a 1926 supplemental volume to the edition, but that volume, strictly speaking, does not belong to the BGA, while the Bach Gesellschaft (BG) no longer existed at that time: the supplemental volume was published by the Neue Bachgesellschaft (NBG) which had superseded the BG by then. Mentioned the correct Bach by first names, while it was indeed the other one (and not the last mentioned one). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "20th century": I'd rather keep both full names for now: the last first name mentioned is Johann Ludwig's, while the last Bach mentioned (in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis expression) is in fact Johann Sebastian: imho, "Johann Ludwig and Lotti" would sound amateurish if you ask me; and the short form you propose is too ambiguous. All other points implemented as suggested. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "21st century": implemented as suggested. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "By author": removed the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe links. I'd have kept them because the "Ausgabe" may become a Wikipedia page in its own right some day, but for the time being the link is indeed redundant in such sources listing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm done with the "first pass" now, and will shortly return to issues that haven't been sufficiently addressed yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Francis Schonken  Pass time for the article; I see no further issues and kudos to you for providing a thorough response again! --K. Peake 12:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)