Wikipedia:Peer review/Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110/archive1: Difference between revisions

I’ve listed this article for peer review because… I hoped it was ready for FAC, but it wasn’t, and I need help to get there. I would have preferred to resolve within the FAC but here we are.

Open questions from comments from TechnoSquirrel69 include:

1. I would link aria, chorus, and recitative again in the table.

   They are quite common words, and were linked twice already. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   What do others think? –GA

   I would not link those in the table – they might be not very common to most readers, but they have already been linked to twice and linking to them again would be redundant. Anyone looking at the table is expected to have at least read the lead, where they are mentioned and described.

   I am on the fence about linking the Bible sections (e.g. Psalm, Luke). Second opinion on this would be welcome. – OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 22:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you. The Bible sections have also be linked before, and I don’t see a difference. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I would personally avoid repeat links in the body. If they have been linked there oor even the lede, it’s pointless. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. From the policy perspective that Wikipedia is not a database, what justifies the long list of recordings, and especially the tabular detail of the conductors and performers?

   A bit of history: the articles on Bach cantatas were first (around 2010) sourced almost exclusively to Bach Cantatas, and had not only the complete text but also the complete detailed lists of recordings (then) including performers, example. (Now, these lists would be far too long to have them completely.) For some articles, such as Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, the discography was moved to a separate article when expanding, but not for the “simpler” ones such as Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79. –GA

   I appreciate the history, but this doesn’t answer my question about why this level of detail is acceptable in a featured article today. —TS

   Do you mean that FA readers should get less detail than what they are used to from the many GA articles on the topic, and almost all articles of lower quality? —Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   What do others think? –GA

   I think it’s a lot like song covers. To put it into more understandable terms, you usually place, and link to, all the notable covers of a popular song on its Wiki page. This “song” just has a lot more “covers”. However I don’t think that the source information “The following is from the website” should be included (but the citation should stay, though, obviously). – OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 22:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I don’t think the complete list of recordings should be included in the article. For one thing, there is very little relevancy in relation to most of the article’s contents. If there are any notable recordings, I would include them in the article. Might be a good idea to split this section into a separate article, which can then be listed at the top of the section. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. I was surprised by the relatively few scholarly sources in this article, and searching on Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, and ProQuest gave me a lot of hits for potential sources not cited here. I haven’t looked into these enough to determine if the article is comprehensive in spite of their exclusion, but it does suggest issues on that front.

   Please compare source reviews for other Bach Cantatas. Bach Digital (run by Bach Archive and the University of Leipzig), seems as scholarly as you can get, the book by Dürr is the “Bible” about Bach cantatas, Gardiner recorded them all and knows what he was doing, we have Wolff, Hofmann and Schulze. Earlier people – such as Spitta and Schweitzer – seem to have looked into more prominent works. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand that many important works in the field have been cited, but there seem to be a lot of minor — but still important — sources that have not made it in. Criteria 1b (comprehensiveness) and 1c (well-researched) taken together mean that you need a good reason for any scholarly source not to be present (for example, if it has nothing new to add to the article’s content). I see no reason why this book that analyzes the piece multiple times, this paper discussing the vocal adaptation, or this paper discussing several recordings should be excluded from a comprehensive article. These are only examples; there are more. —TS

   You asked why the book “The Pathetick Musician” is not cited. Because none of the snippets indicates analysis of the cantata, – it seems mentioned as an example, p. 80: “the chorus is made to laugh on an active melisma on first syllable of the word ‘Lachens”. Why should this reference be added when other authors handled the same information in more detail (and in better English)? —Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   You asked why “Bach’s Adaptations” is not used. Because it seems to use the cantata for a general discussion of Bach’s adaptations, which other authors (cited) cover specifically for BWV 110. You asked why “Bach cantata cycles” (Recordings) is not used. Because this article is about one specific cantata, – we have Wikipedia articles such as Bach cantata where the recordings of full cycles are discussed. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   What do others think? –GA

   That book does not analyze the piece multiple times, at least from what I can see without buying it. It mentions the laughter on that one melisma twice, and provides a very short description. BWV 110 is also included in three lists (in the book). If you have access to the paid version of the book, and can prove me wrong, please do so. – OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 22:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   From the Oxford University Press website description of the book, The Pathetick Musician appears to be a comprehensive study of rhetorical music (i. e. a style employing musical devices to convey emotional environments), rather than a specialised analysis of Bach’s cantatas, let alone the subject of the article. Not worth including, IMO. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. I feel like the descriptions of the movements lack cohesion and flit between topics very quickly. I understand there’s limited sourcing to go off of here, but strictly delineating the movements between sections is exacerbating the issue.

   This is the result of consulting different scholars. What would you suggest? —Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   What do others think? –GA

   Perhaps if there are other scholarly sources, as point 3 states, those can be used to fill the content in. – OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 22:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   If, yes. I looked at the three in question, and said what I saw. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   What do others think? –GA

   Maybe greater relation between the sections describing the movements could be established through linguistic tweaks, e. g. starting the sentences with something like “the second movement begins with…” or “following the third movement…”. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 10:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, I’m not quite convinced. Each movement can be reached by a link, not only from the TOC but also from the table of movements. Saying that 3 follows 2 seems not urgently needed. Perhaps I misunderstood? Thank you for your thoughtful replies! —Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments to improve the article are also welcome. We are heading for the 300th anniversary of this music on Christmas Day 2025. Even if not as TFA, the article should be in best possible shape. Thanks for all help! Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tendencies

I suggest, to make commenting easy, to just sign below the general aspects of the four open question, and provide longer discussion further down:

1. “I would link aria, chorus, and recitative again in the table.” (a third time that means)

yes

no

1. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Grimes2 21:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. “From the policy perspective that Wikipedia is not a database, what justifies the long list of recordings, and especially the tabular detail of the conductors and performers?”

yes, move table to separate article

1. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. and you already know my thoughts on this per List of compositions by Sofia Gubaidulina 🙂 Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no, leave table

1. Grimes2 21:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. “I was surprised by the relatively few scholarly sources in this article.”

yes, include a book such as “The Pathetick Musician”

1. I dont like the framing of this question, but its an issue. And however you overcome, am pretty sure if the sources are not widened the next FAC will also run into the same problems 🙁 Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Please look at that specific book. – What makes you think of a next FAC? I want this article as good as can be, that’s all. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   My prob is the framing of the question, as if it’s just “”The Pathetick Musician”. A I’ve said, you do need to sprinkle more sources to pass FAC. Rightly or wrongly, but that’s the reality. I’m inclidned to agree with you, but you’ll have an uphill and fragement struggle on the talk take, unless…you raise and pre-emp the matter on talk FAC. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no, not a quality reference

1. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Grimes2 21:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. “I feel like the descriptions of the movements lack cohesion and flit between topics very quickly.”

yes

1. Somewhat. They are a little choppy, but nothing outlandishly inconsistent with the contents of the other subsections. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 10:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Feel free to fix in the article. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. With sofixit not a good reply in a PR. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   We had an edit conflict. Now you split the comment, and I split the answer: I replied in greater depth further up. I know my limits regarding English prose, and have to rely on help, and am thankful when it happens. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no

1. Grimes2 21:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]