A fact from Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 April 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the text for Bach's early cantata Actus tragicus, using Bible verses and three hymns, is similar to the sermon held at the funeral of a former mayor of Mühlhausen?
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
Can the first paragraph of the lead be expanded at all? It's rather short. If not, I would recommend moving some bits from the larger second paragraph into the first
It's the standard first info in all Bach cantatas: what by whom for what occasion, place, time. We are in a series of about 200. I would not like to change. --GA
It's so short because we don't know the exact date. Should that be said there? But it's explained in the next sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fine, I understand how difficult it is with finding details on a subject so old! JAGUAR 20:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and a bit free poetry by an anonymous author" - 'bit free'? What does this mean?
In Bach's later cantatas, the bulk of the text was contemporary poetry, with a bit biblical and a bit chorale. Even in chorale cantatas, usually only two stanzas were kept, the rest paraphrased freely by a contemporary poet ("free poetry" by a contemporary of Bach with whom he often collaborated personally). In the early cantatas (compare BWV 4), usually there was only biblical and chorale. This is an exception, because there is minimal ("a bit") work by a contemporary, but sometimes it's just adding one word. Can you word that? --GA
I understand now. I just thought that "a bit free poetry" sounded odd, I would potentially rephrase "a bit" to something like "slightly" JAGUAR 20:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the second and third paragraphs of the "Music 2" subsection could be merged, to improve prose flow
It's a different text source, a different subsection (2c) in the structure, - trying to show the complexity at a glance. When we get to FA level, there will be more ;) --GA
"It quotes two times what Jesus said on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke" - how about It quotes twice what Jesus said on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke?
taken, thank you --GA
The Evaluation section is very short for the GA criteria, if it can't be expanded at all (I realise how scarce information can be), then can it be converted into a subsection?
At present, it's rather a summary of the music section, but belongs not only to the last movement, - how could that be done? --GA
If it can't be expanded then I would have recommended either making it a level 3 subheader or merging it entirely into another section. But I don't see how that can happen in this article, so it should be fine as we're not aiming for FA here JAGUAR 20:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
level-3-header made, good idea! - Could be expanded, and will be, but I'd rather expand three more linked cantatas now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice and compact article, so I could find very little wrong with it. Overall it's very good, comprehensive for the subject and well written. The only (minor) concerns I could point out were some organisation recommendations for the lead and the shortness of the evaluation section, but once they're all clarified this should be a GA in time for Easter! JAGUAR 23:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a great review for an article which will be developed more eventually, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing all of the concerns! This should be good to go now. Just in time for Easter! JAGUAR 22:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JAGUAR 23:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
