# Talk:Locus iste (Bruckner)

Thank you for drafting this page on the most popular motet of the composer.
For the selection of the discography, the intrinsic worth of the performance can be assessed by using more objective features, as respectful use of the score and its indicated tempo, the quality of the sound produced by the used instruments or the voice of the singer, the quality of the recording itself, etc. A choice among the better performances can so be made, by comparing their intrinsic worth. 
A critical review of the available performances of Bruckner's Locus iste has been made by Hans Roelofs. See Critical review of about 200 recordings of Locus iste. According to Roelofs, the better recodings are those by Bernius, Best, Creed, Fiala, Gardiner, Herreweghe, Jørgensen, Kargl, Kvam, Layton, Ortner (1974 and 2008), Polyansky, Samuelsson, Steidler and Stenlund. According to Roelofs the nec plus ultra are Gardiner, Kargl, Samuelsson, and Ortner (2008); Ortner being possibly the best.
You have selected two recordings: Best and Bernius. They are indeed among the better performances; however none of the nec plus ultra is found in your selection. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Meneerke, thank you for your suggestions. I have added two of them to the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the sound file File:Bruckner Locus iste Sung by the dwsChorale.ogg is an abomination and it ought to be removed from this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As for Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner) a game of tag has again been started. Please stop to behave continuously as an obstinate, rigid, procedural barrister and learn to listen to people who are actual experts in their fields and confine your efforts to more helpful approaches.
Concerning the discography please take into account that

there are more than 200 recordings of the Locus iste WAB 23, mainly with a few other popular motets, as extras on a recording of a larger religious work.
the so-called "notability" is in such cases is concerning the larger work on the CD, not necessarily the extras
conductors, as, e.g., Frieder Bernius, Matthew Best, Uwe Gronostay, Simon Halsey, Philippe Herreweghe and Stephen Layton have each recorded 5 to 10 of the most popular motets, sometimes with the two Aequali.
others as pioneer Eugen Jochum (1966), and later Hans Zanotelli (1979), Martin Flämig (1985), Robert Jones (1994), Jonathan Brown (1997), Petr Fiala (2006), Erwin Ortner (2008), Duncan Ferguson (2010) and Thomas Kerbl (2009 and 2011) have devoted themselves to make real anthologies of Bruckner's motets, dedicated to these popular motets, but also to other less popular motets. These recordings, which contain no larger religious work(s), have perhaps therefore not got the so-called "notability".
unfortunately there is no album with all the 48 motets. Two motets —the first version of 1835/1836 of the Pange lingua WAB 31 and the Asperges me WAB 4— have never been commercially recorded, and of the Veni creator WAB 50 is only one recording of a transcription for mixed choir.
almost all the commercially available recordings of the 48 Bruckner's motets and the Aequali have been critically reviewed by Hans Roelofs (a titanic task!). The last, ongoing review of Vexilla regis will be completed next week. I find that Hans' review should at least been referred in the pages devoted to Bruckner's motets.
--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The review of Vexilla regis has in the meantime been completed. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is helpful for GAN, similarly as providing Categories. I would prefer to have it kept. There is no ownership of articles, as far as I am informed. If no valid reason is given here, I will restore it in due time. Serten (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the reason given for its insertion was invalid, that would not be an appropriate step. There is an infobox in the article, with the title and composer at the top; it would not be "helpful" to add more. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Helpful or not to whom? - A mention of a time seems the minimal information we should provide, helpful to everybody who doesn't Bruckner, - key and catalogue number next, and why not "motet"? - An infobox is not meant for those who know it all when they get to an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
When you get to the article you see the lead before you see anything under the picture - so let's provide that "minimal information" in the lead, where it can be seen right away. A whole topic is not meant to be explained by points in a box, and trying that serves the reader poorly, particularly where the information is mostly not data. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I love cat fights, as long no one bites me. What youre suggesting with invalid reason? As said, the infobox is helpful, and provides an easy read structure. What you suppose with an infobox, which is not more than an an image caption? I rather would prefer to have e.g. the Gebrauchsmusik aspect included, which you don't get with a simple text lede only. Serten (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why GAN has been invoked here, since infoboxes are not part of the Good Article criteria. Serten, you are perhaps unaware that the inclusion (or not) of infoboxes can be controversial, and that there was an entire Arbitration case on infoboxes (decision here). I frankly don't see what it adds here—the significant information is in the lede, while most of the box is "below the fold"—so I'm removing it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I am well aware of the discussion and I refrained from joining them. I burned my fingers with the high and mighty in deWP on another, but similar muddy pond with more than three arbitration /  deWP polls and ongoing controversies involved. In that case it was about the German version of the BIO articles, as they - e.g. for Karl Marx (* 5. Mai 1818 in Trier; † 14. März 1883 in London) use STAR and DAGGER symbols for the basic genealogical data. I would like to mention some of the points which helped us - besides a de:DIN 5008 external standard and a longstanding German scientific tradition - against heavy fire - to gain strong majorities keeping Cross and Dagger in deWP.
My transfer of the basic points: A firmly structured info box - including a strict Rule of Order of graphical and textual information - is much better being recognized, quite intuitively, it helps bridge cross cultural and language gaps, e.g. for non english native readers and is very much in line with current technology trends, as in HTML Canvas or Visual language. Its as well of importance for blind people using braille interpreters and other sign language users, e.g. from Asia.
That said I dont understand why you revert to a version Nikkimaria hereself didnt want to keep and I do not agree with the notion, that a infobox has to add significant information, the infobox allows to grasp significant information in a structured way, the classical enWP lede doesnt.  Serten (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I am quite happy with this version of the article, actually; the minimalist template was simply preferable to the bloated version. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I strongly doubt the current version is an improvement. Lets say, the pursuit of happiness should not alone apply to writers, but as well to readers, to which favor I have raised various points.   Serten (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Here we go again.  Nikkik, will you please drop the dan stick with the removal of infoboxes?  You show up on articles where your involvement is minimal and OWN the formatting.  I am getting really tired of this. You were strongly cautioned not to edit war on this issue and you gave up your admin tools in lieu of some more serious sanctions.  Are we going to have to take you to ArbCom over your constant behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6. Okt. 2014‎ 
Montanabw, I deeply resent the very non-AGF assumption that I posted the above and reverted as part of a WP:TAGTEAM attempt. Indeed, I believe this is my first removal of an infobox, though I've been around long enough that I could be forgetting a past event. And why you think I wouldn't know about Bruckner—I've sung this particular piece before, as well as others by him—is quite puzzling. Needless to say, I am reverting your insulting and inappropriate reversion. It will be my last here, naturally; I don't care for the company. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, and you can slap me with a trout, but you have never popped up in the infobox disputes at these classical music articles before, so I had to assume that Nikki was trying to avoid a 3RR violation by pinging you.  As far as singing Bruckner or singing in a particular place, well, I sang a lot of classical pieces in high school and college too, (I was a music major for awhile as an undergrad) and as far as where, heck ** I ** sang in Nortre Dame Cathedral with one of my choirs, so great, we all went to Europe sometime.   But I do not claim expertise based on that, I acknowledge the work of people like Serten, Gerda, and Meneerke bloem, who can. The articles in German wikipedia have been well developed and these folks are working very hard to port solid material over; the infobox dispute is beyond silly, given that there are infoboxes on over half of all WP articles, and enhance the articles immensely for people who are not experts but seek an overview.   Montanabw(talk) 00:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
"... so I had to assume". No, you didn't, and that's the entire problem here. I see you've already reverted me, which was what I expected, though I am disappointed to see it. You may wish to slap yourself with a trout, or perhaps a larger fish is in order; it's likely to make more of an impression if you do it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I myself actively disinvite e-mail on WP content stuff, I do my cabals in the open. You can check that on User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#For_you and in User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#May. With regard to WP:TAGTEAM, BlueMoonset could use that trout as well on me, I was quicker now with flying pigs on all of us. However the fact that Gerda and I after years of harmony just startet to have disagreements - just recently on the use of East Germany in an DYK hook or renaming Evangelical Church of Germany adds to my amusement. That said, independent why you edit, try to express what you really want about an article and either improve it or leave it. I am using my own personal experience and deliberations, try to find appropriate sources and third party opinions and expect that from others as well. Serten (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sheesh. BlueMoonset has said it indeed. No, I didn't ping anyone to avoid anything; the only person who's done that here that I'm aware of is Gerda. Nor is this an article where my involvement is "minimal", although given what's happened here I suppose from now it will be. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the article due to the edit warring.  Please work it out here on the talk page and via WP:DR processes instead.  Dreadstar ☥  01:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Bruckner's Locus iste is indeed become a "good" article.
Unfortunately Nikki, who was somewhat calmed down, is again disputing about the Infobox, discography, etc., as a procedural barrister. See the past of this article, and that of Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Talk:Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner). There was a request for mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner), but this request has been rejected because Nikki declined mediation.
Are there any means to let her stop to act repetitively as an obstinate, rigid barrister with her own interpretation of the Wikipedia rules, learn to listen to people who are actual experts in their fields, and confine her efforts to more helpful approaches?
As Bruckner-expert I am for sure willing to expand the section "discography" and other parts of the present article, as well as for the other drafted articles on Bruckner's motets: Afferentur regi, Ecce sacerdos  magnus (Bruckner), Vexilla regis (Bruckner), Virga Jesse (Bruckner), Tota pulchra es (Bruckner) and Ave Maria (Bruckner), but I am no more intended to again lose time with beating around the bush. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
MY suggestion is to start with the easier issue, if User:Meneerke bloem could post here precisely what the Discography should look like and recommend that edit be made, that would be a start.  Once we have the substantive content fixed, then we can discuss the consensus on the infobox issue, which as far as I can see is 4-2 in favor of one.  Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
OKSerten (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Some motets as Locus iste and 3 other graduals, and Ave Maria WAB 6 are very popular ("Notability") and are often put on LPs / CDs together with religious works of several composers, or as extras of a larger religious work (Mass No. 2), as Philippe Herreweghe (1989), Frieder Bernius (1991) and Simon Halsey (1990). 
Some conductors, however, have devoted LPs / CDs actually as anthologies of Bruckner's motets (sometimes together with the Aequali and the early Masses or other "forgotten" works, as the Missa solemnis, the Magnificat and the earlier Psalms): Eugen Jochum as pioneer in 1966 (with Psalm 150), and later others as Matthew Best (1982), Jürgen Jürgens (1984), Martin Flämig (1985), Uwe Gronostay (1985 & 1995), Robert Jones (1994), Rupert Gottfried Frieberger (1995 & 2007), Jonathan Brown (1997), Petr Fiala (2006), Erwin Ortner (2008), Thomas Kerbl (2009 & 2011) and Duncan Ferguson (2010). Unfortunately none of these conductors has recorded a complete series of Bruckner's motets. 
A critical review of the available recordings of the Bruckner's motets has been made by Hans Roelofs.[1]


### My suggestions for the discography
First: a short introduction mentioning the approximative number of the recordings (i.e., the popularity of the work), mentioning also the first available recording.
Thereafter: a selection of recordings mainly from the above mentioned anthologies or, if required, from other LPs / CDs.
To make the discography of the motets more user-friendly, putting not only the name of the choir, but also that of the conductor (and, e.g., for the Ave Maria WAB 7 that of the soloist).
FYI: I have put on two compilation CDs my own selection of the motets from the above mentioned or other LPs / CDs, and, when there was no commercial recording available, from YouTube (1st version of Pange lingua WAB 31) or the Bruckner Archive (Asperges me WAB 4) in chronological order of composition (see: Band 21 of the Gesamtausgabe [KLEINE KIRCHENMUSIKWERKE]). NB: In Band 21 of the Gesamtausgabe you find also a few other "smaller" religious works: the three early Masses (Nos. 2, 5 & 41) and the two Aequali (No. 14).
--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. You could simply start the section for this article right here, then I would see better what you mean, we (all) can improve the section together and then use it as an example for other articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
PS: If, as for the Pange lingua WAB 31, the 5 Tantum ergo WAB 41 & WAB 42, In jener letzten der Nächte WAB 17 or Iam lucis orto sidere WAB 18, there are two or more versions, the discography of the different versions should be described separately in subsections, as I previously did for the Symphonies (see e.g., Symphony No. 2 (Bruckner)#Discography). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Stress "Selected", - there will be a link to the critical discography for those . We don't talk (yet) about Locus iste discography (which might be a subject worth covering), but a short section mentioning perhaps five recordings and covering why they stand out, what aspects of the work they make audible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It would of course be a "Selected discography", with a few examples. The selection would be using criteria, as quality of the recording itself (correct mixing of the voice and the voices with the organ, trombones, not-excessive echo), respectful use of the score (tempo(s) and other indications [pp, ff]), pronunciation of the song text, quality of the sound produced by the singer(s): can the singer(s) sing the higher notes required by the work on a soft (i.e, not shrill) manner and the lower notes too (i.e., not vibrating)?An example of a work, which is requiring a high-quality soloist is the third Ave Maria of 1882. Composed for alto soloist and organ (or other keyboard), it requires a two-octave large tessitura (from F3 to F5).For interested people, who want to explore more in details and can read German [!?], they could then refer to Hans' critical discography. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The first recording of Bruckner's Locus iste occurred in the beginning of the 20th century:

Karl Luze, Chor der Kaiserlichen Hofmusikkapelle – 78 rpm gramophone disc G.C./HMV 44762, c. 1907.
There are over 200 recordings of Bruckner's Locus iste. Below a selection of a few recordings based on the following criteria: good recording (e.g., not-excessive echo, correct mixing of the voices), choir: respecting the score (tempo and other indications [pp, ff]), correct articulation of the text, etc.

Matthew Best, Corydon Singers, Bruckner: Motets - CD: Hyperion CDA66062, 1982
Philippe Herreweghe, la Chapelle Royale/Collegium Vocale, Ensemble Musique Oblique, Bruckner: Messe en mi mineur; Motets - CD: Harmonia Mundi France HMC 901322, 1989
Frieder Bernius, Kammerchor Stuttgart, Deutsche Bläserphilharmonie, Bruckner: Mass in E minor; Ave Maria; Christus factus est; Locus iste; Virga Jesse - CD: Sony CL SK 48037, 1991
John Eliot Gardiner, Monteverdi Choir, Wiener Philharmoniker, Bruckner: Mass No. 1; Motets - CD: DG 459 674-2, 1998
Dan-Olof Stenlund, Malmö Kammarkör, Bruckner: Ausgewählte Werke - CD: Malmö Kammarkör MKKCD 051, 2004
Petr Fiala, Tschechischer Philharmonischer Chor Brno, Anton Bruckner: Motets - CD: MDG 322 1422-2, 2006
Ulf Samuelsson, Ungdomskören OPQ, Under höga valv - CD: Olaus Petri Församling OPCD001, 2006
Stephen Layton, Polyphony Choir, Britten Symphonia, Bruckner: Mass in E minor & Motets - CD: Hyperion CDA 67629, 2007,
Erwin Ortner, Arnold Schoenberg Chor, Anton Bruckner: Tantum ergo - CD: Ausgabe des Chores, 2008
Otto Kargl, Domkantorei St. Pölten, Cappela Nova Graz, Bruckner: Messe E-Moll, CD: ORF CD 3174, 2013
--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no opposition to my proposal, I have update today the section "Selected discography" accordingly. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Locus iste (Bruckner)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 23:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this article tomorrow. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it well-written? 
1. "Locus iste (This place)" - I suggest re-writing this to "Locus iste (English: This place)".
done GA
2. "It was published in 1886, together with two other gradual motets" - This seems like something to mention after "composed by Anton Bruckner in 1869".
I don't think so, as it was much later. First what it is. GA
3. "Votivkapelle (votive chapel (de))" - I honestly don't think there is any need for the "(de)" link.
I had hoped to start a little article, but gave up, therefore dropped. Any idea how to say that this is not the typical (little, separate building) votive chapel, other than looking at the image? GA
4. "and composed Preiset den Herrn (Praise the Lord) on a text by Maximilian Pammesberger. It was performed on 1 May 1862 on the building site" - Is suggest connection these two sentences to something like "and composed Preiset den Herrn (Praise the Lord) on a text by Maximilian Pammesberger, which was performed on 1 May 1862 on the building site".
done, but reads a bit as if the text was performed ;) GA
5. "While some sources claim that the motet was first performed on the dedication day, 29 September 1869, together with the first performance of Bruckner's Mass in E minor, it was performed four weeks later, on 29 October, at the same location" - To avoid confusion, which also hit me, I would suggest adding "in reality" between "was" and "performed".
taken GA
6. "Bruckner dedicated the work to his student at the Vienna Conservatory, Oddo Loidol" - Wording doesn't quite flow. I suggest reformulating it to "Bruckner dedicated the work to Oddo Loidol, one his student at the Vienna Conservatory".
tried, hope it's not like the source now (sometimes that's the reason for "not flowing", - the flow being in the source) GA
7. "(Christus factus est III, WAB 11, Os justi, WAB 30 and Virga Jesse, WAB 52)" In this sentence, I don't think it's necessary to mention WAB numbers.
I don't agree because the numbers tell some readers more than the titles. Let's drop III. GA
8. Hmmm ... Why not use a table to display the poem and English translation?
9. "Iso Camartin" - So far the article has not mentioned anything about Camartin, so I suggest writing "Swiss author Iso Camartin" instead of simply "Iso Carmartin" with a link to his article to avoid confusion.
with pleasure GA
10. "Camartin notes: "das unanfechtbare Geheimnis" (the irreproachable mystery)" - The "das unanfechtbare Geheimnis" part should be in italics not quotes.
done, but how do we know now that it is a quote, only from the context? GA
11. "as "unfassbar" (incomprehensible)" - Same here.
same GA
12. "beunruhigend" (disturbing)" - And of course here as well.
same GA
Is it verifiable with no original research? 
The sources used in this article checks out, but I would strongly recommend making a "Source" section, list all the books cited in this article there, and then used Harvard references.
Is it broad in its coverage? 
Is it neutral? 
Is it stable? 
The article has quite a history of content disputes, however, they all seem to have faded in importance.
Is it illustrated? 
The article is not far off from meeting the GA-criteria, but I have outlined some loopholes in my review which needs to be fixed before it can be listed, so going to put it on hold and give the GA-nominator a chance to respond. Good work people. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see what I made of your good suggestions, received with thanks. Referencing: I prefer Harvard, but this article was started by a user who usually insists that I obey WP:CITEVAR and that I ask the community before changing, even for articles where I was the only editor. I asked about opposition on the talk, but will politely wait a bit. The same editor does not like an infobox, - that was about the only reason for dispute that I see. The article was fully protected until yesterday, I removed a parameter from the infobox that does't appear in the body, but think otherwise the box supplies wanted key features at a glance, especially useful for a foreign language title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Please let me know why the first recording and the approximate number of recordings have been removed. There was no opposition to put them within the "selected discography".
Why has "bar" (British English) been replaced by "measure" (American English)? "Bar" is the term preferred by Wikipedia: see Bar (music). "Measure" is redirecting to it: see Measure (music). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, the article is better now. Harv references was, at the end of the day, a suggestion and after what you told me about WP:CITEVAR, I don't think it's such a big deal. Regarding point 3, I think the image is more than fine and don't think you should go into any further detail about it. Regarding point 4, I think the reader will understand the true meaning. Regarding point 10, I actually meant that the German wording should be in italics and also quotes like this: "Camartin notes: "das unanfechtbare Geheimnis". And Meneerke bloem, I have restored the part you mentioned in question. With these improvements and discussions I don't see any reason not to pass it. Excellent job. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know if there is opposition to improving the references to harv, as the GA review asks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Bruckner expert Hans Roelofs has reviewed the page. Below his comments and suggestions:

“Catalogue”: WAB 23 i.p.v. WAB 2 (de “3” is weggevallen).
Datum van compositie: je geeft hier alleen het jaartal aan, terwijl je bij het algemene artikel “Motets” de precieze datum geeft; ik had het eerder omgekeerd verwacht (of in beide gelijk).
“in common time”: wat bedoel je daarmee?
Bij “framing the second and third” heb ik even moeten nadenken wat je precies bedoelde; het klopt, maar voor iemand die het motet (nog) niet zo goed kent kan dat onduidelijk zijn.
“Iso Camartin”: welke toegevoegde waarde heeft daar de mededeling dat hij een Zwitserse auteur is? Die toevoeging geef je ook niet bij andere auteurs.
“Oratorio Society of New York”: de zin is onlogisch. Je bedoelt dat dit in het programmaboekje bij hun uitvoering staat; de auteur van de tekst wordt in het programmaboekje niet aangegeven. Ik zou er iets van maken in de trant van: De auteur van het programmaboekje van de Oratorio Society of New York wijst er op dat ... etc.
“Selected discography”: Je kunt er eventueel op wijzen tot nu toe geen kopie van deze eerste opname bekend is; ik heb ze nooit gehoord, bij de Bruckner-Gesellschaft in Wenen was het bestaan ervan onbekend, ik heb haar ontdekt in een oude catalogus en via een verzamelaar van 78-toeren-platen die de nummers heeft bestudeerd ben ik achter de mogelijke of vermoedelijke opnamedatum gekomen. Zeer intrigerend – hoe komt het dat niemand deze opname kent? Ook bij de Wiener Sängerknaben, de voortzetting van de Kaiserliche Hofmusikkapelle weet men het niet (hun archief is sowieso een zootje ongeregeld!).
Bij de “References” geef je in enkele gevallen aan: “in German”. Je doet dat vrij consequent, maar dan moet je ook bij van Zwol telkens aangeven “in Dutch” – en is dit relevant? Uit de context wordt voor geletterde lezers wel duidelijk dat het geen Engelstalige publicatie betreft; uit literatuurbibliografieën ken ik dit gebruik niet.
I will implement comments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 & 8. Comments Nos. 4 and 6: the input of authors who wrote these items would best reply. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments  Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 & 8 implemented. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment No. 4: It is clear, if you realise that "the first line" is Locus iste ... is A, and "the second" inaestimabile ... and the third irreprehensibilis ... are together B. According to Gerda Arendt no need to be changed.
Comment No. 6: "The Oratorio Society of New York notes ..." changed to "A reviewer of the Oratorio Society of New York notes ..." --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, reviewer? Someone offering the recording for sale. "Quiet chapel"? No idea if he knew the particular chapel. Michael Bednarek told me what purple language means. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not a reviewer—it's someone who wrote program notes for the Oratorio Society CD that featured Locus iste. I have fixed the article accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

composed on 11 August 1869, as the article states, or completed on 11 August 1869? If it was composed in a single day, the text might say so. --Wetman (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

C. van Zwol writes on p. 705 "... componeerde Bruckner op 11 augustus 1869" (composed on 11 August 1869). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In the section "External links" the first example from YouTube shows the score, but the performance of the (anonymous) choir is too fast and without nuances. There are a lot of better performances on YouTube, e.g., that mentioned in the "Selected discography" by the Cantores Carmeli ("warm, homogenous ... with empathy and airy". See Critical discography of Locus iste).
The second example is better chosen, because, as a workshop, it gives a structural analysis of the work.  I propose to remove the first, quite disappointing  example. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)