# Talk:Herr Jesu Christ, du höchstes Gut, BWV 113

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herr Jesu Christ, du höchstes Gut, BWV 113/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) 16:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
I will get on with this tonight! --K. Peake 20:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Should eight be 8 instead in the infobox per MOS:NUM regarding comparative values?
makes sense --GA
The first sentence should be worded to only mentioning the name and BWV number of the cantata then it being by Johann Sebastian Bach; see Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121 for an example
I like to please, so changed, but I still think the famous composer would give a reader unfamiliar with German and not knowning BWV more of an immediate context. --GA
Start the second sentence at the point of him having composed the cantata in Leipzig
same --GA
The Thomaskantor part is not sourced in the body
He is known for the position (later people are referred to as the 16th Thomaskantor after Bach, for example), - do you believe we really have to reference it in every composition? --GA
Nope, skip this part it is not needed upon further inspection. --K. Peake 18:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The last para is literally one sentence, so should be merged with the above one
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


### History and words
First para looks good!
1588 should not be in brackets where there is not a title, instead write "Bartholomäus Ringwaldt's 1588 hymn..."
done --GA
"He treated stanzas 5 and 6" → "The poet treated stanzas 5 and 6"
I rephrased the whole thing, please check.
A source is needed for the last sentence
The sentence is there to connect to something more familiar, with the same text (in English!). If you click you can even listen to it. If that needs something in writing, I'd rather drop the connection. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


### Music
#### Structure and scoring
Remove link on movements
yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Second para and table look good!


#### Movements
##### 1
Good


##### 2
I am not sure what the continuo and main motif information pieces are trying to say; if this is that the continuo is part of the main motif then only include in that sentence and if they are separate, still start the motif as a new sentence to avoid a run-on even if it is part of the trio.
"It can be seen" specify what this refers to please.
Answering both together, because I have the feeling that something basic may be missing. As simple as I can: we have a trio of three "voices": the singer, the violins and the continuo (= bass instruments). They all use a main motif. The motif (or "it") is a descending fourth (a melody going down four steps), is taken from the chorale, is used in imitation, can be seen (or interpreted) as illustrating humbleness, or the burden on the sinner. Does that help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt While I understand what you mean here, a capital "A" is still used mid-sentence which does not read right at all so please fix this part. --K. Peake 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Try again, - I missed turning a comma into a full stop. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


##### 3
Wikilink oboe d'amore in the prose and img text
well, it was linked in scoring already, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Last para looks good!


##### 4
Good


##### 5
Good


##### 6
Good


##### 7
"the chorales final idea" → "the chorale's final idea"
yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


##### 8
Good


### Manuscripts and publication
Shouldn't the third sentence be re-order to saying "It was published as part of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe in 1986"?
Could, yes, should I don't know. It's 100 years later, and is somehow expected because were complete editions. --GA
Place a space before "with a critical report"
yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


### Recordings
Good


### References
#### Cited sources
Copyvio score looks solid at 21.5%!!!
Cite Bach Digital as publisher instead
Cite Muziekweb as publisher instead


### External links
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed, around a day later and best of luck with it! I like the enthusiasm in you having starting to respond already. --K. Peake 18:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt  Pass now, this article reads completely fine! --K. Peake 08:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)