# Talk:Wir danken dir, Gott, wir danken dir, BWV 29

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wir danken dir, Gott, wir danken dir, BWV 29/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 18:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lede
Is there no article for Ratswechsel or German council election?
As the article later explains it's not an election. Ratswechsel is change of council, Ratswahl election of council, both terms are historic, I never heard them other than for these works. --GA
"Bach used the music from the choral movement for both the Gratias agimus tibi and Dona nobis pacem of his Mass in B minor." -can you add the year?
Sorry, no, we don't know. 1748 or 1749 seem most likely, the composition history of that work is one of the mysteries. We know that Gratias went to the Missa (Kyrie + Gloria) in 1733, as the article later says, but not when he had the iday of expanding. I thought the 1733 detail is to much for the lead of the cantata. For more see de:Missa, BWV 232 I.
History
" a "ceremonial transfer of office" " -attribute quote?
done --GA
What are Kyrie and Gloria?
The first two parts of any complete mass, based on the Order of Mass. For Bach and other Lutheran composers, they (and not more) constitute the Missa (pictured in German article of the Missa, link just above History). --GA
Music
Delink organ per overlink.
done --GA
"The voice, a solo violin and the continuo are equal partners." -"partners" seems strange in this context
the source has "gleichrangige Partner", - what do you suggest to say that all three are of equal importance? -GA
"A recitative" -should be linked in section 4 in first instance and delinked in section 6
delinked both, was linked much sooner --GA
20th-century adaptation
Unsourced. Needs referencing and probably merging into the bottom of history.

I found that in the article and would live happily without it. --GA
Looks in very good shape and should pass easily, those minor things aside.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for diligent reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I will go ahead and remove the unsourced section, asking for sources if someone objects, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)