# Talk:Der Herr denket an uns, BWV 196

This review is transcluded from Talk:Der Herr denket an uns, BWV 196/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 19:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I will get around it ASAP. Yash! 19:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime, can we have a section on "Selected recordings", like there is at other articles? Yash! 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've expanded it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I've formatted in the usual way. I have a problem to find the two required page numbers. Will try to find substitute sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
"has been suggested" - suggested by?
"worked" - better if we can add what he worked as.
"Scholars have suggested as a possible occasion the wedding of..." - missing something? Can be better phrased.


### History and words
Ref for the last two sentences?


### Music
Any relevant link for "processional music"?
"return later" - for? If for the closing section, mention it.
"which is also appears" -> "which also appears"


### References
As stated by Gerda Arendt.
That should do it. My apologies for the delay in reviewing. Yash! 12:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed all of these. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Good work! Passing it. Yash! 18:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Something that I missed previously: there isn't an appropriate explanation for "considered to be an early work on stylistic grounds" in the prose. Though I have passed it, I would appreciate if somebody got around it. Best, Yash! 19:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that if the best database gives a date, then explaining that it seems the most likely one, we could do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That site gives a possible performance date, which is disputed by other reliable sources, and no composition date that I can see - I don't think we can say anything about "the most likely one". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This by publisher Carus says that Spitta gave the date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
And other reliable sources (eg. Jones) say different things - again, I don't think we can really say one is "most likely". It was composed early, maybe performed 1707, maybe 1708, maybe 1709, but we don't know. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I think I wasn't clear. I didn't mean it adds to "most likely", but we know (now) that Spitta gave that date. - The Carus source arrives at 1708–14, and some range like that would be better than nothing, imho.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
We know what Spitta gave, but we also know other sources give other dates. I think a range like that presented without explanation has greater potential for confusion, because it can be understood as "the work was composed over this period" rather than "the work was composed at some unknown time during this period". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you see any other way to indicate "Early cantata" at a glance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
No: sources disagree on the date, and that is difficult to convey without reading the text explaining that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
We will probably never be sure about this date, - unless some miracle turns up the score. I am not happy to say nothing because no date/year/period in the infobox leaves the reader completely in the dark, - worse than a few years off with a question mark, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A reader who doesn't see a date in the infobox can look at the article and be enlightened; a reader who sees a wrong or unclear date in the infobox either looks at the article or leaves misinformed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)