Talk:Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele, BWV 180

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like a Gigue??[edit]

I can't agree that the first movement, a chorale, is "like a gigue". Gardner describes it as a procession. Mincham as a fantasia. Calling this graceful piece "a gigue" does disservice to both the cantata and a gigue! Delmlsfan (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to agree with Dürr, who says so, which is now in the article, together with Gardiners (different) view. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele, BWV 180/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be glad to take this review. Bear with me--I'm a little out of practice. Comments to follow in 2-4 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Excellently written. I've made a few small copyedits as I went; please doublecheck to make sure I haven't accidentally introduced an error myself.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Well sourced for all interpretative claims
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Evaluative statements are all clearly cited to critics.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No evidence of edit-warring
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
y. . Pass--congratulations!