# Talk:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 06:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I will be doing this. — Yash talk stalk 06:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


### Lead
"appeared first in 1524 in Wittenberg in Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn" - too many "ins" - you can change it to something like "first appeared in Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn (1524), a hymnal published in Wittenberg."
I tried it differently, becauseI don't want to through the reader in the cold water of an unexplained phrase in old German. --GA
"The Holy Spirit is addressed, which makes the song suitable for Pentecost, but with general themes around faith, love and hope, it is appropriate also for general occasions and funerals" -> "The song addresses the Holy Spirit, making it suitable for Pentecost. However, general themes of faith, love and hope make it appropriate for general occasions and funerals as well." (or "However, with general themes of faith, love and hope, it is also appropriate for general occasions and funerals.") - you can also just drop the "however" and it works as fine.
taken, without "however" --GA
If we have links for relevant music of the Renaissance and/or contemporary era, do link them.
done, - problem is that the meaning of "modern" and "contemporary" always shifts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


### Medieval first stanza
"ducumented" - probably a spelling mistake ;)
yes --GA
Instead of "died 1272", better to go with "c. 1220 – 1272" as it is more informative.
I understand that we normally don't provide life data of linked people, - the year of death is only given to  reference 13th century,
a link for "old German" maybe?
well, old German would be too old, so I added in brackets the kind of old German this is, Middle High German --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


### Protestant continuation
"reformer" -> "Protestant reformer"
I don't know. It's now Reformation, not Protestant Reformation, but still Protestant reformer which seems inconsistent ;) --GA
"Luther's text, set to music by Johann Walter, appeared in 1524 in Wittenberg in Walter's choral hymnal Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn." -> "Luther's text, set to music by Johann Walter, appeared in Walter's choral hymnal Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn (1524) which was published in Wittenberg." - or any other construction you'd like in order to avoid 'three ins'.
Do mention when Praxis pietatis melica was published - 17th century.
It came in several editions, I am not sure if it was already in the first.
Can we link either "The Lutheran Hymnal" or "St. Louis"?
both ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


### Catholic continuation
"different three stanzas two to four" - this seems very unclear. Maybe rewrite it?
What do you suggest? As Luther, he kept the first stanza, but wrote two to four, but differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, I failed to understand the meaning. So, does it mean that Michael Vehe rewrote stanzas two to four while retaining the original first? Something along the lines of "In 1537, Michael Vehe, a Dominican monk and theologian, rewrote stanzas two to four while retaining the first." or "Michael Vehe, a Dominican monk and theologian, retained the first and rewrote stanzas two to four in 1537." should do fine. Best, — Yash talk stalk 03:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
All writers - Luther and Vehe at this point - took the one medieval stanza and continued their - altogether different - ways. There was nothing to rewrite. When it goes to FA I will add more about the differences ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I see. "wrote in 1537 different three stanzas two to four" still sounds rather odd. How about "wrote in 1537 stanzas two to four differently"? In any case, it's a very minor point and I don't mind promoting this article to GA status. Great work, Gerda! — Yash talk stalk 08:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


### Melody and musical settings
"Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn of 1524." - no need to mention the year again as it has already been mentioned twice.
removed --GA
Ref(s) for "Dieterich Buxtehude composed two organ preludes, BuxWV 208 and BuxWV 209. Johann Sebastian Bach used the third stanza in his cantata Gott soll allein mein Herze haben, BWV 169, composed in Leipzig for the 18th Sunday after Trinity and first performed on 20 October 1726."
Well, it's in any listing of Buxtehude's organ works, but will use this one. For Bach, I copied from the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


### See also
It is not really needed if it only has "List of hymns by Martin Luther" since that is already linked in the infobox and is easily noticeable.
agree --GA
That should be all. Best, — Yash talk stalk 17:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for good comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of "by" in infobox Text field
The documentation does prescribe this for hymns, but it is unnecessary: the reader will interpret a simple name as the text author. Retained, but I will investigate further. Jmar67 (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
In other compositions, text may be Magnificat, a poem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that occurred to me, but it still should be clear without "by". "I just don't like it!" :) Jmar67 (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Nothing I would fight over ;) - It reached GA as it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Copy edit completed. Jmar67 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Gerda Arendt. I added List of hymns by Martin Luther as a See also, and had missed the link in the infobox (the differently worded 'Hymn by Martin Luther'). The link works as a See also as well, both because the infobox link is not clear that it's to a full listing and it reads more like a short summary, and readers would likely find it easier as a See also. Readers coming to this page are not likely to immediately jump away to the wording 'Hymn by Martin Luther', and may just take it as a descriptor (thus losing the link). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Jeez, did you have to revert 16 other pages (thanks for the hit to my revert percentage). 'Hymn by Martin Luther' is not enough of an indicator that the descriptor goes to 'List of hymns by Martin Luther'. It is a short summary. And I don't think links in an infobox count as links within the text, where See also lives. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Will discuss it here, not on my talk page. You say you are no fan of See also, which explains why you don't appreciate the link. Many readers read the See also section, it is very prominent in clicks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, would like to point out another misconception you have and mentioned on my talk page. Navboxes do not figure into if an entry is used at See also or not (nor should infoboxes). Navboxes only appear on 30% of views (they do not show on mobile). While still on pages seen by tens of millions of readers a day, navbox links are a separate navigational tool than See also. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
As for See also views, which you question, please check out User:Randy Kryn/See also stats as to why adding such lists to See also greatly ups many pages and adds at least 10-20 views a day onto even lessly-read pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This talk page is about the improvement of this article. I doubt that adding a list that readers can link to in the infobox adds much. It also singles out Luther, while the article is about several hymns by different authors. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Because this article is listed and linked at List of hymns by Martin Luther, so the See also mention directly addresses both pages. This page is not well read, but if one reader every two weeks or so links to the list page (in a recent test of a main page article 18% of readers linked to a See also mention) then it seems worth it. People who love or are drawn to this hymn's page can then find others to appreciate. I think we might be working towards the same goal, just two ways to get there. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)