# Talk:St John Passion structure

I began this article thinking of GFHandel, whose help on the structure article of Messiah by his namesake I appreciate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be more than just pointing to a later part of the article. How about something from [1]? Myrvin (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't read the linked book. Do you address this article, or perhaps St John Passion? Anyway, improvements welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Myrvin
Your addition - about the history of understanding of the structure - doesn't belong as the very first line of the structure article, it should be in the history of the work, see talk. - No reference in a lead, please, which is a summary of what comes later with references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you.  As I said in the Talk page, the article needs a proper introductory sentence that explains why the article exists. I suggest you read WP:lead. It says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects," and "The lead should establish significance ... and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." It shouldn't start by just pointing to a later part of the article. There is no WP rule that you shouldn't have references in the lead - millions of articles do this.  I note that William Waterhouse (bassoonist) and Aloys and Alfons Kontarsky, with which you have had dealings, have references. So do Mozart, Joseph Haydn, and the St John Passion itself. I do think there should be more about what the St John Passion is in the lead. Maybe that could be the first line, or added to my first line. Myrvin (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I've had a go at that. Myrvin (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for changing. I was (too) short, sorry for that. Normally, a lead should be a summary for sourced facts later in the article, for example BWV 172  where the only citations are for quotations. Please try that here also, by inserting a paragraph about history of perception of the structure. I am surprised by "explains why the article exists", - no other article I know explains why it exists. (This one exists because I would have a problem to insert a infobox in the main article.)
Those were my words. As I said WP:lead says "The lead should establish significance,"  and all articles should do this. So, it needs to say why would anyone want to write or read the article. In this case, if the structure was very simple and  uninteresting, someone could ask why the article should exist and propose deleting it. By saying - as my source did - that it has "musico-theological intent", that tends to suggest that it is of interest.
My original citation WAS for a quote. The new one, stolen from the Passion article, establishes a source  for it being an oratorio, and giving its BWV number. Did you get the quote thing from WP:CITELEAD? If not, you should read it. Myrvin (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:St John Passion structure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 16:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written 
a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct
b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research 
a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
c. It contains no original research

I know not all sentences on Wikipedia needs sourcing, but this article contains entire sections and tables completely un-sourced. Am I to believe that none theses sections needs references? It's almost half of the entire article! - Problem fixed. - JV
Broad in its coverage 
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

Neutral 
It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable 
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Illustrated 
a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Pass, fail or hold? 
I'm going to put the article on hold and give the GA-nominator a chance to comment on all these un-sourced sections. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I reworded the lead, stressing more that it is about the structure, and moving a quotation to later in the article. About the referencing: the table is a result of reading the score, as you look at a picture and can tell something is blue without a secondary source telling you. The story is in the bible, like a plot. Plots don't need references. The names of authors and years when texts were written are in the Ambrose source. The numbers and names of movements (on top of being in the score) are listed in the online score summaries, example. The table would look more complicated with refs applied to each field. - If you look at the table you see for example that all chorales are in common time. - Compare Mass in B minor structure and tell me what else you would need. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
To look at a score, I recommend the NBA, Bärenreiter, Studienpartitur. I feel that I should not provide the link to the pdf, because it would bypass the copyright disclaimers of the free scores' library. I also think page numbers would not be as helpful as the movement numbers provided, because readers of different scores can follow better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, the article is better and more clear now. Good job. just one last thing: the file Brockes.jpg has a ((PD-Art)) template without license parameter, it needs to be fixed. When that's done, I will pass the article. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
By fixed, do you mean no pic or get the license? I have limited access, will try the latter, but please feel free to remove if I don't succeed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Gerda, just remove it if you cant "fix" it, that way I know if u can succeed or not. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks good to me now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did my revisions of this article get eliminated? Dgljr5121973 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which ones you mean (please provide a diff). - Just know I improved two items with a disambiguator: you don't leave Organ (music) but pipe-link organ. I wonder why you would mention organ at all, because it's normal in the continuo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Because in Version III, the Organ is a solo instrument in Movement 19.  Also Movement 27c has both the Evangelist and Jesus.  Dgljr5121973 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Small issues which I noticed while revising the article, yesterday:  
1. The details specific to each version would require inline citations (ex: "There are no extant Flute parts for this version, so the movements that normally require them have violins instead") per WP:SYN - if there are no sources which combine the information in the way presented (even if the deduction is trivial), then it's OR. I'm sure a good look through the multiple books about Bach would provide adequate citations; (ex. Christopher Wolff's book on Bach, 2013 edition, p. 294 which has several comments about the piece and it's revisions) 
2. The tables could require some reworking. Currently they add excessive length to the article. A good way to do it would be something similar to St Mark Passion (attributed to Keiser)#Late 1740s. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

How can we best include the bach-chorales.com website? Example http://www.bach-chorales.com/BWV0245_14.htm for movement 14. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)