# Talk:Wo gehest du hin? BWV 166

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wo gehest du hin? BWV 166/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) 17:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 21:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
I will start on this article today, been in the queue much too long! --K. Peake 21:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Pipe Thomaskirche to St. Thomas Church, Leipzig in the infobox
Redirects are there for a reason: to show this is the right target, no? --GA
The translated title should be written out in the body where you mention the text of the first movement instead
Not sure what you mean: to give the poor reader an idea of what all that German means, a translation can't come too soon, no? We have around 200 of these articles, such as Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. Or do you mean just the literal translation? --GA
I mean that the translation should be written out in the body so the source is added there, although it can be kept here too as you gave a good rationale above for this. --K. Peake 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
To avoid the first para being too short, I think you should re-organize this section to start its second para at the six movements sentence
I like the day of the first performance to stand out, and topic to stand out, and that is better achieved by not combining. Convince me ;) --GA
On monitors, this looks bad with a first para too short and the six movements would work as a new para starter. --K. Peake 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikilink alto
done, thank you --GA
Pipe librettist to Libretto
see first bullet: why would that be better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


### History and words
The second sentence should only invoke [2] at the end rather than mid-sentence as well
How would I indicate then that [3] and [4] support only the second half? Or should I drop them? Admittedly, I found [2] later. --GA
Like above, [2] should only be invoked at the end of the sentence in my opinion and this is because it comes across as overciting to have the same reference used twice in one sentence especially when these do not have any overabundance of refs.
I will put it at the end, then will have to drop 3 and 4 there, because they don't support the first half sentence. Was I clear in my question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


### Music
#### Scoring and structure
Remove pipe on movements
done --GA
Add a space after (Ob)
added before --GA
Pipe Neue Bach-Ausgabe to New Bach Edition
again: why? --GA
Table looks good!
thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


#### Movements
##### 1
Not sure if the "Where are you going?" part needs a full-stop to end the sentence when there is a question mark inside the quote that can end it
not sure either, but the sentence would end on a full stop without the quote, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


##### 2
Good


##### 3
Remove wikilink on cantus firmus
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


##### 4
Good


##### 5
Good


##### 6
Good


#### Manuscripts and publication
Merge the first and second paras, they seem to be linked and are too short on their own
Are you sure, with more than 100 years between the two facts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


### Recordings
Good


### References
Copyvio score looks pretty good at 31.8%!


#### Cited sources
Cite Bach Digital as publisher instead since this should not be italicised


### External links
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed; good work already on this one and I picked up the pace today! --K. Peake 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I fixed what I could, still have some questions. I go to bed now. Will travel tomorrow, afternoon my time, long trip and then unpredictable internet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: This looks a lot better now, although you have not written the translation out in the body as well nor moved [2] to the end of the sentence like we agreed. I do understand your question, however it feels a bit tedious to invoke references at any mid-point of a sentence where they are most relevant especially when there is not an overabundance in my view. --K. Peake 18:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC
Sorry twice, I am travelling, and had no serious internet for more than a day, and I thought I had fixed the ref problem but failed to see that it happened twice. I fixed the second occurrence by splitting the sentence. The translation has a ref in the lead in all similar articles including FAs, and I interpreted your reply as understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
 Pass now, edited the ref order but everything else is perfect sorry I missed this yesterday had a delay travelling home! --K. Peake 09:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)