# Talk:Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80

The title of the fifth part of the cantata is currently listed on this page as “So stehe denn bei Christi blutgefärbter Fahne.”  (This is also the way it is printed on the CD that I own, manufactured by PolyGram Classics & Jazz.)  However, the title is alternatively given as “So stehe dann bei Christi blutgefärbter Fahne” in various places.  (A Web search seems to yield both variants in approximately equal measure.)   Unfortunately, I don’t speak German, and so cannot ascertain whether one or the other is obviously wrong.   Can someone give a definitive answer as to which variant is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross Walton (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 

Both acceptable, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The image of Luther's chorale would be a good illustration of the chorale, but is not so well suited for Bach's work of two centuries later. Bach will probably not have seen in this notation style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Bach would probably not have seen much of what's in the article, but he drew on that original in creating this cantata. What would you suggest as a replacement? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer an image of Luther (showing the difference in style more clearly than the style of notation does) and the Occasion, Reformation), place this one to Music, where the melody is mentioned (I hope, it's not "my" article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe, but how does an image of Luther show a difference in style? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Misunderstanding, I wanted to point out that the uneducated reader will hardly tell the difference between the music notation shown and that in Bach's writing. The cantata topic, Reformation, should show, and Luther stands for it, no? People switching from his image to that of Bach (if they look up the composer) will notice the 200 years in between, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting choice: "Stained glass of Bach consulting with Luther". Will the uneducated reader get that they are two centuries apart, and the the glass window again was made centuries after the later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Didn't you just say that readers comparing the appearance of the two will notice the 200 years in between? Why send them to another article to make that comparison? Besides, although the caption might better indicate this, that image better conveys the inspiration and the day than a simple image of Luther. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I said that of their two portraits. On the window, they are so small that I actually didn't see what was shown until I read the caption, so much for "inspiration". No more from me here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For as long as the article had the navbox {{Bach cantatas}}, it was open, making all BWV numbers accessible without a further click, and - almost more important now - the many related articles that appear in its footer. When a new navbox was added, that possibility was lost. I tried to solve the unwanted situation by keeping the simpler navbox open. Some readers have problems to find the label "show", and some have problems to click on it even if they find it. Why make it hard for such readers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't agree we should prioritize one navbox over the other, given that they are very similar. Could we change the box design to make the "show" more obvious, if there is concern about not finding it? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually we could do with just one, if you ask me. We could also keep both open if prioritizing is a concern, - readers who got that far down in the article will probably not mind. I myself didn't find the "show" button (in the opera side navboxes) for years, - I took them for images of the composer, no more. Moxy expressed concerns about clicking on the "show" button in a 2013 discussion (look for the name, first 6 March: 20:24). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd be fine with having just one, disagree with opening both just because that would take up a lot of space and create a lot of duplication - some readers do want to get as far as categories. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The image can be placed above the infobox when broad landscape is required. The present image (discussed in 2013, see above) is slender and could even in the largest desirable size upright=1.3 fit nicely in the box, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That image is so oversized as it is that it looks flat out bizarre.  I think it needs to be inside the infobox.  Montanabw(talk) 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't agree - the larger size is useful to see the intricate details of the glasswork. It's quite striking. Putting such an image inside the box would adversely affect the box width, even though the image is taller than it is wide. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't work very well on my cell phone, taking up two full screens before I even get the opportunity to read the article. As of October 2016, mobile traffic represents 46.5% of total traffic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately that problem would likely persist whether the image were inside or outside the infobox - we really need a better solution than asking users to change preferences themselves. But I've implemented a possible workaround. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I see a difference between the image in the infobox or above, because the title would then show on top, while with this image, it looks like an article about stained glass. A different solution would be to use a different image for the top, perhaps one that has some relevance to the specific cantata. To give no image to mobile users, as you tried, is less attractive, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
In both desktop and mobile view the title shows on top whether there is an infobox, image, both or neither - far more prominently in mobile view than desktop. I have no objection to displaying the image on mobile the same as on desktop, as originally done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear: the title is a lot of German + an abbreviation, easily confused with the hymn of the same name. The infobox title says that it is a chorale cantata by Bach: much more informative to have that on top of an image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I imagine the audience that (a) is on mobile and (b) knows there are two things with this exact German title and (c) knows that only one is by Bach and/or that only one is a chorale cantata but (d) doesn't know what BWV means is quite small. For that audience, any possible confusion can be easily resolved by scrolling down, which is intuitive for many and an expected action anyways. Keeping the image hidden on mobile, while less attractive, eliminates even that minor inconvenience. On desktop, the reader sees "cantata" and "Bach" in the first sentence already, even without scrolling. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I also write for readers (sometimes called idiots) who don't know a word of German and don't know what BWV means, which is - thanks to you, btw - nicely linked in the infobox top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If you think such readers are likely to miss the footnote explaining what BWV means, we could revisit the idea of linking it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not afraid of that, the article title has no footnote, nor a link. We talk of the reader who - with this lead image on a mobile device, given it was back - will think the article is a stained glass window named "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" until he get's below it, while with the image included in the infobox, they would see right away that it's a chorale cantata by Bach, with three helpful links. The image could be the same size within the infobox, - I am at a loss why you would not also prefer that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Currently the image doesn't display on mobile, so there is no possibility of such confusion occurring. While I agree that having the image visible on mobile would be more attractive, the problem mentioned by Dianna above would be present whether it were inside or outside the box, unless it were inordinately shrunk. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

See suggestions at (now archived) Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Images. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
...and revived below at #Lead image. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The peer review was archived. Below are some of the open questions: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


### Discussion of the balance in the "history and words" section
Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#History & words section. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer review now archived. Some of the suggestions made there have not been implemented (yet), so might be further discussed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding use of this particular hymn for Reformation: this source and a few others link it to the Diet of Worms, German nationalism in the Reformation period, and the Battle of Leipzig. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The approach of Lightwood, James Thomas (1906). "I: The German Chorale". Hymn-tunes and Their Story. London: Charles H. Kelly. pp. 1–22. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) seems somewhat anecdotal – not too sure how usable it is (also, over a century old, possibly not completely "up-to-date" scholarship). Doesn't really answer the question to what extent in Bach's days the "feste Burg" hymn was experienced as specifically tied to the feast of Reformation Day. Connotations of such hymns can be fickle, and extremely dependent on context. For comparison: I wrote much of the anecdotal content at Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her#Reception history. As it happens, that hymn (also by Luther) has an extremely Lutheran connotation for instance in Sweden and Finland, but when it is sung for instance by Sting, nobody seems to even make a Lutheran connection (the text is in that case marked as "traditional" without making a link to its actual origin). Another example: Jacob Handl's Ecce quomodo moritur justus was intended as part of the Catholic Counter-Reformation by its composer, but a century later it was experienced as a Protestant motet. As for the status of "feste Burg" as "banner" of Protestantism, it is my impression that much (most?) of that connotation actually originated in the early 19th century – a century after Bach wrote the cantata. Lightwood says something in that sense p. 8: the name "Luther's hymn" only originated in the early 19th century. If that is so, the early publication of Bach's cantata (1821), Mendelssohn's use of the chorale in his Reformation Symphony (1830), etc, may as well have been part of the foundation of that strong connotation for this hymn, as its consequence. I have seen no reliable source yet which is explicit on this point in either direction.
In other words, the accidental circumstance that Bach had a Weimar cantata lying around which, once he had moved to Leipzig, was no longer usable for its original purpose, a cantata which happened to contain parts of a hymn that was one among dozens of hymns suitable for Reformation Day so that the cantata was not too difficult to re-purpose for that occasion, was maybe something that helped form, a century later, the strong association of that hymn with the Lutheran Reformation (and not the other way around, unless a reliable source says so explicitly). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think, without reliable sources that say so explicitly, we can make that determination either way without going into OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, summarizes exactly what I tried to say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


### Suggestion to broaden the reception perspective
See current discussions on Peer review page, particularly:

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Publication
Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Recordings
Please keep the discussions, for the time being, on the Peer review page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

See also (now archived) Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Integrated reception section and Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Publication in lead?. Some of the suggestions have not been implemented (yet) and can be further discussed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
A short description of the reception of the cantata following its first publication (based on e.g. Wolff, Terry, and at least mentioning Rochlitz) is still missing (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Publication). Also the integration in a broader perspective as suggested at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Recordings is still missing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


### Lead image
Quoted from the peer review (where there was some discussion, as last year, see above) but open for new views:

The lead image is at present a 19th-century stained-glass window. If you look closely, it shows Luther and Bach. I believe that it is barely suitable for the article, and certainly not for the lead, which should show something specific to the article.
I question the position of (whichever) lead image above the infobox.
The image of an inscription of the cantata incipit on the church where Bach was baptized seems also only remotely relevant to the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As per previous discussion, I disagree with your points 1 and 2, but would be amenable to moving or removing the inscription. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the inscription - someone can place it elsewhere in the article if they feel strongly about doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!
Compare Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79 for my idea how to illustrate the Reformation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Images I made three suggestions:

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
WP:RfC on lead image(s) and infobox options for the BWV 80 article, conducted at itsthis talk page
WP:DRN with Gerda and Nikkim. as participants, and an intermediate suspension of all lead image/infobox discussions for the BWV 80 article in this peer reviewelsewhere.

The first of these seems out of the door (recycling the same or similar arguments continues, underlining the "time sink" aspect of this never-ending story ...); The second is not what I would prefer, but unless either of the other options is chosen I'll initiate one nonetheless; The third is what I would suggest most strongly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the peer review while it was going on. Here are some comments and suggestions. These tend to be specific rather than general, in large part because I know next to nothing about the subject area.


### Lead
The image: 1) Why is it not part of the infobox (being a different width from the infobox, too, looks clunky)? 2) What church is it from? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
A question for Nikkimaria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough on the lack of consensus. One other idea (not sure if it was already raised) would be to scale it down, or to scale the infobox up, so the widths are at least equal. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God")": Should this be italicized, as is the German title? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hymn titles in quotation marks don't need italics, because they are separated enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'm a little bit confused about the consistency though. It seems like whenever this cantata is named, it is italicized, but almost nothing else is. That would be fine for consistency's sake, but then why is Alles, was von Gott geboren italicized? Also, the use of quotations seems inconsistent; sometimes a German title is within quotation marks and the parenthetical English title not, sometimes it's the opposite, and sometimes both titles are so indicated. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"Some years later, he reworked the cantata one more time": Suggest removing the comma. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a perennial debate between American and English, and I never know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"writing an extended chorale fantasia as its opening movement.": Perhaps "for its opening movement." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"as" is still there... --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"and included Wilhelm Friedemann's extended instrumentation.": Perhaps "and included an extended instrumentation by Wilhelm Friedemann." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
is there now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


### History and composition
"Bach wrote the cantata in Leipzig for Reformation Day, 31 October.": Perhaps "... Day, celebrated annually on 31 October." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
What year did he write it? This doesn't appear to be in the lead (or infobox), either. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
nobody knows as explained in detail, - too complex for lead and infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"Bach was able to reuse an earlier cantata": Perhaps just "Bach reused an earlier cantata." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"which was written in Weimar": Perhaps "which he wrote in Weimar." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"Bach quoted a hymn twice": Do you mean he included the same hymn two times, or included two hymns? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
my language problem: how to make clear that it's one hymn in both movements? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I would say "...Bach quoted the same hymn twice..." --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"and in an instrumental cantus firmus of its tune": Of what's tune? (This might be obvious to one versed in the subject, but is confusing to me.) --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
speaking of one hymn, the tune of that one hymn, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"Luther's hymn "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God")": Should these be italicized? See second point above under lead. They're not italicized in the A Mighty Fortress Is Our God article, however, so perhaps there is some convention at play here. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
same is above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"which is "Mit unser Macht ist nichts getan" (With our might nothing is done), for the closing chorale.": Is this the title of another hymn? If so, "which is" incorrect, and should instead be something like "and" or "with." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
It's the incipit of the second stanza of still the one hymn, which has four stanzas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Got it, that makes sense now. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"ended up in three libraries in two continents": I like the phrasing, which uses few words to very effectively convey how the fragments were spread about. It's also intriguing, and so some more information would be nice to sate curiosity: What libraries in what countries? Why were the fragments separated, and how did they end up in three different collection? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I see something there now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
", and give a very incomplete picture of the version.": How much remains? Any idea how much of the original whole that represents? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
no --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"Dürr proposes a time frame": It's the first time you mention him, so also using his first name would be good. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
was done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"Bach wrote Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit, BWV 14 in that year, which had an opening chorus of a comparable structure and was also based on a hymn by Luther": This should be rearranged to "Bach wrote Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit, BWV 14, which had an opening chorus of a comparable structure and was also based on a hymn by Luther, in that year" or to "In that year Bach wrote..." (I slightly prefer the latter.) --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
looks done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
For consistency, I think the new working "Dürr suggested 1735" should be "Dürr suggests 1735". --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"and timpani; these two movements": I might use a period instead of a semicolon, if only to avoid a one-sentence paragraph. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a completely different, so should not be combined, one sentence or not ;)
I noticed that Nikkimaria made many of the changes you proposed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


### Music
"a four-part choir and a Baroque chamber ensemble": Perhaps add an Oxford comma after "choir." Also, does the choir not get its own abbreviation (e.g., S for soprano and Va for viola)? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The common time symbol: Perhaps make slightly smaller so that it doesn't expand the lines in the text, and the height of the rows in the chart. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"(rare among Bach cantatas)": This could perhaps be turned into its own sentence with some added context (e.g., how many/what other cantatas). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Movements sub-sections: The titles don't perfectly align with what is in the chart. Perhaps number them (e.g., "1. Chorale fantasia" and "2. Aria e chorale"). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
That's another question for Nikkimaria. I articles I write more or less alone, I number, example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"the bass sings free poetry": What does this mean? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"aria and chorale": "free poetry and chorale text". How would you understand that better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I think I just don't know what "free poetry" is. Do you mean free verse? This might just be something that I don't understand as a relative layman. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"(Everything that is born of God) ... (Nothing can be done through our strength)": The convention adopted earlier in the article would appear to favor putting the titles between quotation marks, but they are not present here and later in the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
They are there to seperate, which in this case the brackets do, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
See above. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Generally speaking the later Movements sub-sections seem slightly underdeveloped; this is particularly true with the line "The movement includes 'occasional furious melismas'", which feels somewhat random and out of place. Here and in the last sentence under "Aria duetto," it feels slightly as if quotations are being used as a way of putting words down, not as a way of cogently expressing information. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"although these are not always performed.[17]": Unless the entirely of the cited work is about this point, the particular page(s) should be cited. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Here, I replied only where I knew something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


### Reception
"with the opening movement marked Choro Alla Capella.": What does this mean/what is its significance? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
seems gone --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"as the first Bach cantata": Perhaps "and was the first..." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
was changed to "the first" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"edited by Frieder Rempp": Did he edit the entire New Bach Edition, or just particular pieces (such as this one) therein? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
He did several but not all, - does it matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Not really, and reading it again I'm not sure why I was confused before. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Arrangements section: This sentence feels like a thrown in aside, and is underdeveloped. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"as demonstrated in a laudatory 1822 article": Should be "as demonstrated by" --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"Wolff suggests that this cantata": His first name and/or a wikilink could be given again, since he hasn't been mentioned in a while. Matter of personal preference, however. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"The 1870 edition, in contrast,": Should probably be "by contrast." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"Modern musicologists agree...": Again, this feels somewhat underdeveloped and not comprehensive. If Smith and Wolff are the only two modern musicologists that appear to have offered judgment of this piece, that should be said. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Performances section: Feels a bit odd to be focusing on/only include American performances, when it's a German piece. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no reception in the German Wikipedia article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments! Nice to find this on my watchlist, but I will first go through and do the day's topics before returning to details. For the lead image: there was a lengthy discussion with no consensus in the PR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I looked and could answer some questions, and others not. Thank you for looking into it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: not so long ago the guidance at WP:TPO was adjusted – it reads now: "... Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent ..."
@Usernameunique: you might consider to use "#" instead of "*" before each point in a list of suggestions and questions on a talk page: so replies by others can refer to the numbers instead of the now forbidden "interleaving" (see what I said to Gerda above). Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
This was titled Post peer review, so I handled it as I do peer reviews and FAC reviews. - I find an answer right below the question the easiest to follow, and mark my replies by a short signature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
A simple sorry would have sufficed: please don't do this any more on a regular talk page – as said the rules changed not so long ago. I don't think we need a lengthy discussion about the principle here, you can find that lengthy discussion in several sections (including two RfCs) at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Responded to a few of Gerda Arendt's points above. Since they're already interleaved I figured I'd stick with that to avoid either a mishmash or a complicated restructuring, but Francis Schonken, I will follow your advice in the future. Can see arguments for and against both ways. All comments are signed, so searching the page by the time stamp should make it easy to find them. I see this has now a GAN; good luck! I'd suggest making sure the {{citation needed}} and {{clarification needed}} tags, and the banner under "Reception," are dealt with, as—even if they're unwarranted—they provide a cosmetic blemish that is easy for a reviewer to pick on. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't dare to remove tags, but a reviewer - or you - could check them out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER was formally closed earlier this month, with, in the closure report, regarding the Bach Cantatas Website: "...  there seems to be concern that the provided site is, apart from any copyright issues, self-published". I'll remove the link to the copyrighted material, and add {{Self-published}} until resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Further, recordings need either a catalogue number or a full reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't think that's correct; do you have a policy or guideline to say that catalogue numbers are required? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
No, they're not required, but if they're not given a full reference is needed (with or without catalogue number, but with the publication date instead of the recording date). The catalogue numbers are considered sufficient as a less complicated alternative. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Would be interested to see a link supporting that assertion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Forget about the catalogue number if you like, but the section, as is, is unreferenced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The only "assertion" made by the section is that these recordings exist; the data is self-citing, with or without a catalogue number. MOS:DISCOGRAPHY is very loose in what is required. We could certainly provide inline citations to eg. Amazon if you're seriously concerned that these recordings don't exist, but it isn't strictly necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
From the lead section of Wikipedia:Citing sources: "... a reference, uniquely identifies a source of information" (emphasis added) – record company + catalogue number can do that (so should be sufficient). The recording date is what needs a reference: giving recording dates without references is ... unsourced information. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Given this is classified as a Good article, I'd better ask whether there are any objections to adding the LilyPond score for the closing chorale?

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

taken with thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)