A fact from Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort, BWV 126 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 February 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Do we know from which work the two stanzas (by Justus Jonas) were taken from?
I don't ;) --GA
Does "Cantata text" have to be "anonymous" even if we know that works by Luther and Jonas were used?
The typical thing for Bach's choral cantata format was that a poet of his (Bach's) time rephrased the hymns by the older poets. That one is anonymous. If you know how to clarify that better, you are welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He held it unto his death in 1750, but that is of little relevance for this 1725 cantata, while 1723 is, telling us that he was in his second year. --GA
Maybe link "Lent"?
yes --GA
"God's power is mighty in the 'week'" - is it supposed to be "weak"?
yes --GA
"The cantata is based on the hymn "Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort" ..." - the sentence is too long. Better to split in two.
done --GA
"the parable of the Sower" is not in italics in the prose, while it is in the image caption. Also, the caps are different in the image caption. Use either of those styles at both places.
In the image caption, it's the title of a painting, in the prose its the title of the biblical narration. --GA
"The topic of both, the hymn and the gospel, is obviously God's word..." - "obviously" is not necessary.
Not needed, but in many other of Bach's chorale cantatas the connection between chorale and gospel is far from obvious, so in a way this is makes a difference. --GA
"Obviously" is a WP:PEACOCK term even if it stresses upon something, and WP:EDITORIALIZING applies whenever it is used. In my understanding, the meaning does not become any different if "obviously" is removed. You can instead opt for something like "differing from Bach's most chorale cantatas, the hymn and the gospel of Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort show a direct depiction of God's word". That is just an example and you can entirely change the sentence but peacock terms should absolutely be absent. I shall pass it after this. Cheers, — Yashtalkstalk 00:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me understand how I failed clarifying. What is different is not God's word, what's different is that in this cantata (and some others, such as Mit (FAC, - if you're willing to comment there you are welcome!) there's a close connection between chorale and gospel. I tried to summarize that in the little "obviously" (hard to tell for me how that is POV, which translates to me to "for everyone easy to see"), but perhaps you find a better way of saying that. If not, I will just drop it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The sentence is not a POV per se. But usage of the word "obviously" is felt as "excess verbiage", since the intended meaning of the sentence remains the same, even without using it. You can maybe use words such as "demonstrably", or "evidently", but I highly recommend that you at least drop "obviously". Best, — Yashtalkstalk 18:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make more obvious what perhaps is not as obvious as I thought, - and dropped the word. - Read a quote by Mark Twain that you may know: "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have - passing :D — Yashtalkstalk 01:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"This means that" is rather redundant and I would strongly prefer removing it. The sentences can also be merged like: "Bach first performed the cantata on 4 February 1725,[6] only two days after the..."
"The cantus firmus of the chorale[4] is sung by the soprano, the other voices sing in imitation, embedded in the independent concerto of the orchestra." - perhaps add a conjunction after "soprano"?
"while" suggested --GA
"fast runs in the voice" is a tad bit confusing, for me at least. Does that mean the vocals are fast during the portion or the words are sang quickly in the background? My apologies if this is something which is too obvious.
in music, "run" is a sequence of sounds in fast or rapid succession, - I see (for the first time) that we have a link link, try that, --GA
Link for " W. G. Whittaker"?
yes --GA
Would it not be simpler (and better in my opinion), if we just write "W. G. Whittaker quotes: '...'", instead of "John Eliot Gardiner quotes W. G. Whittaker: '...'"?
simpler yes, but I have no access to the Whittaker source. --GA
"a different melody" - just a suggestion and not immediately needed but an explanation about how they are different could be added.
not after midnight, need sleep first --GA
This is a fine article. Not much to complain about! As always, great work Gerda. — Yashtalkstalk 01:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for another diligent review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
