Talk:Ich bin ein guter Hirt, BWV 85/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) 07:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Wikieditor662 (talk · contribs) 17:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gerda Arendt! This will be the first article I’ll be reviewing. @It is a wonderful world will be mentoring me. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikieditor662, I’m looking forward to working with you on this! This should be a relatively straight forward review, as Gerda is a very experienced writer, and it’s quite a short article. Here are two tips that newer reviewers sometimes struggle with:

1. It’s a good idea to structure your review based on the criteria. Different reviewers do this in different ways. Some use the templates linked in the “GA toolbox” on the right, others just create section headings based on the criteria. I personally think the clearest way to do it is with this (feel free to copy+paste) or a similar structure, but you are free to use if you would like.
2. It’s a good idea to keep track of how you evaluated the criteria as you go along, even if you find no issues. It means others can see you are checking everything, and allows you to keep track of the review better. For example, when evaluating the scope/broadness (criterion 3), you might write “The structure appears to follow the same structure as other GA and FA articles on this topic. I see no major omitted areas.”

IAWW (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I inserted your template. The part under “prose” has the lead and different sections — for that, do I 1) go under each section and comment only on the prose, and after that check the other criteria for the entire article, or 2) go for each section through the entire criteria? And anything else I need to know? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both! Funny: I am running my first GA review at the same time, for North Christian Church, begun 2 days ago and to be continued today. Critical eyes on how I am doing it are welcome. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that’s great! I just looked through that review and it looks very strong. So strong that it goes beyond the GA criteria a lot! There’s nothing wrong with going beyond the criteria in a review, and I’m sure Epic appreciates the extra depth, but do be aware it’s best practice to separate the points that go beyond the GA criteria from the ones that are required to pass. This prevents scope creep in GA reviews. Best of luck! IAWW (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it goes beyond the GA criteria a lot! enough for FA? Should it have been nominated for that instead? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that review is more of an FA style review than a GA review, which makes sense because both Gerda and Epic are experienced at FAC. Normally editors pass their articles through GA before FA, to iron out any big issues so it is more likely to pass at FAC. Also you can only nominated one article at once through FAC, and some editors write articles faster than they can pass them through (Epic is definitely one of those. It’s insane how fast he writes such good articles). IAWW (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I find it best to check each criteria for any major issues, and then go through the prose to check the prose criteria. Often when going through the prose you will also find smaller issues with the other criteria, like a bit of prose may be overly detailed. IAWW (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the criteria below! Did I do it right? Any suggestions for me? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wikieditor662, nice work! I would say the only essential improvement to your review is: For the spot check, you should list the sources you checked and whether they passed or not, like:

[2]: Y

[10b]: Y

[11c]: N does not support “insert unsupported text”

I gave the article a quick skim through and found a few subtle points which are relevant to the GA criteria and should be caught, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect a new reviewer to catch them, so don’t feel bad that you missed them. I’ll put them in the prose review below. IAWW (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt, the only major thing that surprised me about this article is that there is very little information on the reception/history of the cantata from after it was performed. Is there simply no reliable sourcing for this? IAWW (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These cantatas were no concert pieces, but church sermons. Nothing that would garner reception. Rather generally so. Reception – in featured articles – is more about reception of recordings than the pieces. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks for explaining. IAWW (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt Have you checked the Media section? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helper: It is a wonderful world

Lead

This section contains the phrase included a verse from the Gospel reading and two hymn stanzas, having two links right next to each other violates WP:SOB.

I disconnected them. (For me, both terms seem common and don’t need links, but some reviewers wanted one for hymn, and others one for stanza.) —Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but it is not a chorale cantata: The contrasting “but” is not supported by the body. See the bottom of WP:EDITORIAL

What do you suggest to still keep it short? —Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quickest fix is just remove the “, but” and start a new sentence instead. IAWW (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I’ll have to be a bit more detailed in both lead and body, based on Chorale cantata cycle which is complex, but a few things in real life and here will come first. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History, hymns and words

He had ended his chorale cantata cycle on Palm Sunday that year,[3] and later assigned Ich bin ein guter Hirt to his third cantata cycle: There should not be a comma before “and” as it does not connect two independent clauses. See WP:CINS.

The three cantata texts were probably written for Bach’s first year in Leipzig, but postponed due to the workload of the first performance of the St John Passion that year.:

• There is a WP:CINS error here. There should not be a comma before the “but”, because it does not join two independent clauses.
• I think the contrasting “but” is a bit of editorializing. It isn’t supported by the source, as the source does not use a contrasting structure.
• The source says “perhaps as a result of the colossal effort which went into the completion of the St John Passion”, whereas the text in the article states it as definite.

  Thank you for pointing at places where it shows that I’m not a native speaker, so may need help. If I remove the comma, is the “probably” good for the whole sentence? —Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I’m a little confused what you’re proposing exactly. Could you write it out? IAWW (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Please, in an indented discussion, always copy the indenting exactly, adding your new one, and never insert blank lines.) I did it, removed the comma in the article, – is the “probably” at the beginning now good for the rest of the sentence? —Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it looks better. It possibly could still be interpreted wrong, but I think the most natural reading is the accurate one now. In replying, I use the “reply” featured on the rendered talk page (I don’t edit the source directly). I believe the feature always leaves a blank line for some reason. It almost always gets the indentation right but sometimes I have to go into the source to fix it. IAWW (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just checked and it actually doesn’t normally leave a blank line. I have no idea why it did on the previous two replies, but it seems to be functioning well now. IAWW (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring and structure

(soprano (S), alto (A)tenor (T) and bass (B)): There should be a comma between alto and tenor, right? Just checking because I know absolutely nothing about music.

yes —Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movements

Manuscripts and publication

Recordings

How do you know that Dellal, Pamela (2025). “BWV 85 – Ich bin ein guter Hirt”. Emmanuel Music. is reliable?

The piece is in German, and we need some translation. Ms. Dellal has translated all sung music by J. S. Bach, so seems qualified. What is reliable or not in translation? Others translate slightly differently. Occasionally I have also cited other translators, such as Jones or the translators of the Carus edition who produced singable versions with matching syllables. Compare some FAs such as BWV 1. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article says Bach’s autograph score of the cantata and a set of parts that Bach had partly revised himself are extant.[2] Are you able to get other sources of media, such as an autograph score, or an incipit?

What do you mean by “get”. Do you think there should be link to the autograph score, while it is in the Bach Digital source? —Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to having a picture of the autograph score. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

• Not to be overly picky, but in the phrase He had ended his chorale, is the word “had” really necessary, or is it redundant?

  That depends on context. In a chronological narration, it would be wrong. In the context I found it, “had” indicates that this happened before what was told before, so seems even needed. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]