Talk:St. Martin, Idstein

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

Conflict of interest[edit]

This article seems to be almost entirely written and controlled by the St. Martin's press secretary, Gerda Arendt [1], but I see no acknowledgement of a conflict of interest, so I thought I'd flag it for other editors. 185.4.92.50 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a secretary but an unpaid volunteer exclusively maintaining the website's music pages. I am interested, but have no (financial) interest to declare. I report facts from independent sources. I have no idea what you mean by "controlled". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:St. Martin, Idstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 08:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this, — Yash! (Y) 08:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Shouldn't the official name be better placed in ()?
I am not sure I know what you mean. If it is right after the article name, - better not. It's a lot of German before anything is clarified, and it's only of the church while the name is for both parish and building
  • "church built 1888" -> can be tweaked.
yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of the parish St. Martin[edit]

  • Use something other than "today", like "as of xxxx".
added year of naming
  • There is an improperly used ")"
  • "Protestant Unionskirche" sentence can be merged with the following one.
  • "built in" -> "built from"
3 fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Construction of the present church[edit]

  • "most simple shape" sounds subjective. Best to remove it.
"most" removed --GA
  • "visible both inside and outside" -> "visible inside and outside"
I think that it is unusual and deserves being stressed by "both" -- GA
  • What is the purpose of mentioning "Berlin" in brackets? Better to use "from Berlin" like "from" is used in the following section.
fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration in 2003[edit]

  • "also the crucifixion scene" -> You mean to say that it was also? If yes, then it needs a rewrite. Preferably use "and" after "The tabernacle"
tried --GA
  • There isn't any better alternative of "young people"?
I am not familiar enough with those terms in English to know if there is a better one for "young people in preparation for confirmation", in German "Firmlinge" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can "Confirmands" be used? If I am not wrong, it means the people who are about to undergo confirmation. — Yash! (Y) 22:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably misleading, - at least in German it's "Konfirmanden", preparing for de:Konfirmation (Protestant), while "Firmlinge" prepare for de:Firmung (Catholic), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mebold Organ[edit]

  • Make "Orgelbau Mebold" a red link and use "(de)".
ill --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Church music[edit]

  • The whole section is not sourced or am I missing something?
Should I source by individual pages of the official website? Church music in services is often not covered by other sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If no other sources are available, that should be fine. — Yash! (Y) 22:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo, some facts here still remain unverified if I am not wrong. Let me know if there are any sources available or not. It is alright if there aren't any as I am pretty happy with the work you have done and I don't see any problem in passing it. Cheers, — Yash! (Y) 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could reference by individual pages of the official site, as said before, such as this about the youth choir, this about the orchestra, etc. I have no extra time today, though ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have also included" -> by "They" you mean the choir or church?
I made it "The groups": three choirs and three instrumental ensembles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choral concerts[edit]

  • The first paragraph needs citations.
The first paragraph is a summary of the table, where each item is sourced. Unfortunately the regional papers reorganized their website, leaving several articles available when the article was first written in 2010 no longer accessable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • There is one dead link.
Replaced by German version.
Thank you for good commments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for this delay. I am having trouble finding time for internet these days. I was waiting for you to cite the "Church music" section. Everything looks in order so passing it. Again, sorry for the wait. — Yash! (Y) 17:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chorale concerts[edit]

A "primary sources" tag has been placed at the Choral concerts section. Comments:

  • The article has been reviewed as a GA with the current sourcing.
  • A previous version had many reviews from the regional press. However, the press changed their online service, so that the reviews can't be seen anymore. Online visibility on the official site seemed more desirable, but if wanted the reviews can be restored as offline sources.
  • Most of the concerts are referenced to a secondary source, such as [11]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. [11] – http://kulturring-idstein.de/redirect.asp?http://kulturring-idstein.de/termin_einzeln.asp – doesn't show a thing that confirms the article content. Also for being self-published by the Kulturring Idstein I doubt whether it would be of much use here, even if it would show anything that confirms the article content.
GA review doesn't impress me much regarding the sourcing of this section. Or was the suggestion to take the whole article to WP:GAR?
These seem unsuitable as concert calendar references:
17. Messa di Gloria Giacomo Puccini. St. Martin. 8 May 1999.
18. Idsteiner Bachtage. Idsteiner Bachtage. 28 May 2000.
Not even sure what type of source this is/was?
19. John Rutter Requiem / Benjamin Britten The Company of Heaven. 20 October 2001.
20. Die Schöpfung. 15 June 2002.
21. Georg Friedrich Händel Utrechter Te Deum / Utrechter Jubilate. 29 June 2003.
22. Weihnachtsoratorium. 11 December 2004.
23. "Chormusik aus England / Break forth into Joy" (PDF) (in German). 9 October 2005. Retrieved 10 November 2010.
Not indicated who is the publisher of the source
24. "Magnificat / Werke von John Rutter" (PDF) (in German). 5 June 2006. Retrieved 10 November 2010.
Publisher?
34. "2/8/2015 / Jenkins, Karl: Gloria". Boosey & Hawkes. 2014. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
A few others confirm the concert calendar but are nonetheless primary sources.
Instead of giving the full concert calendar, which also reads like an advertisement for future concerts, I suggest to pick a few notable concerts that were commented upon in the press, and summarize some of the evaluations of these concerts in the press. Whether these press reports are still on-line or not is not really an issue (but please give the page number in newspaper where a concert review appeared). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on your concerns, but will need a week or two,- you may have seen that I had to reduce my service due to health reasons. I don't know what you see at the Kulturring listing, - I see the dates when I look for the place, - actually I see several more dates not listed, in order to focus. Page numbers are a problem if you had an online version before (no page number), and a paper clipping perhaps without a date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Kulturring: I only see empty records, like this:

0.0.0 - titel

leer

leer

Datum: 0.0.0
Uhrzeit Beginn: 0:0 Uhr
Ort: leer
leer
Veranstalter: Kulturring Idstein e.V.

Re. page numbers in newspapers: Author+title+Newspaper+date may suffise, maybe even enough to retrieve via the WayBack machine (archive.org)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kulturring: I see four empty events, then events from 2003 to now 10 December 2015. How come the difference? - Will see what I can do about the early concerts, before the website was even created on St. Martin's day 2004. - I was told (forgot by whom) that program books can be used like other books. The Bach-Tage 2000 book was about seven events in the two major churches in town as an ecumenical project but not yet performing together, organized by the two churches and sponsored by the town (for example). For the dates of performance, you will have to trust such books, because reviews rarely mention them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boosey: if I search for "Jenkins, Karl" and date "2/8/2015" I get to the performances but don't know how to link that. How is this by-product? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Gerda, I'm not going to discuss about this too much. Get it right or remove the table. You know how it works. A reference needs to be precise enough to actually find the content without complex searches (e.g. the Boosey search actually only works with "08/02/2015" as date format and not with how dates are written in the article, with the day before the month). That's about the deplorable state of some of the refs. Refs shouldn't be a puzzle. Solve it or remove the entries based on such scant refs. This is a precise reference (found it with the search function), this is not.
The other, more fundamental, problem is the OR/UNDUE issue: "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]" is the applicable policy, and I seriously doubt there is much of an encyclopedical value in listing the yearly concerts in this church. Pick a few concerts that received significant coverage in secondary sources. Summarize the comments of these sources, and remove the rest. Very local sources also don't really show significance of a concert, but I can't really assess that for the sources that are no longer mentioned in the article.
If you have a problem with this approach, I think you would probably be best to stop editing this page (which you already should have done per WP:COI), and handle this via the WP:COIN noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A COI question and answer is on top of this page. The table is at the bottom of the article, a service for the few interested in the overview and links to music, orchestras and soloists, - I see no point in reducing that service. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read the question and answer above. It means you should stop editing the article per WP:COI. And should have long ago. Again, please stop wasting my time with things you already know. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have interest in the music and the people making it, agree, but no conflict. Inviting Yash!. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Still trying to waste my time? What you have is an unexceptional WP:COI, which means you should best not edit this article. Take it to WP:COIN if you think that nonetheless this article should have large portions of content based exclusively on primary sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As said above: I worked on your concerns, added paper reviews for concerts to 2004, which leaves only 2005 and 2006, which I would not like to remove because of the all-English composers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Francis, the COI that suggests it not wise to edit the article refers to paid editing; people with a close connection need to exercise caution, but are not prohibited from editing. Gerda, you aren't paid by these folks, are you? If you are involved in a volunteer capacity, there is an argument to be made for putting the appropriate "close connection with the subject" tag here on the talk page, and maybe bringing in another music editor you both respect who is not Gerda or Francis (or Montanabw!) to do a review or 3O for POV is wise. Also, Francis Schonken actually IS right (Francis, I just said you were right about something, please acknowlege!) that you should go get Wayback links or something so that all material available online can be accessed. (If behind a paywall, you can't use wayback, but that's a different issue and it is legitimate to cite to print versions) I did some wayback archive links at several of my horsey FAs, try the older ones for examples of layout if you need them. Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any difference between a season ticket holder for a football team developing articles about that team (which I have) and one involved with a church, etc etc. People edit what they're interested in. Next you'll be saying a Muslim should not edit Islamic articles. I don't think your views reflect policy or mainstream practice, Francis.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerda Arendt has stated that she is an "unpaid volunteer" and she should not stop editing the article per COI. If anything, a tag of "close connection with the subject" can be possibly added. The article is well-written, neutral and does not push any POV. Gerda Arendt has worked well on the article and has not done anything wrong to merit any action. Francis Schonken, you might want to give WP:CRY a look. — Yash! (Y) 12:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wertschätzung[edit]

Wertschätzung für Ihre Beiträge!† Encyclopædius 16:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what a nice contrast to the above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Martin,_Idstein&oldid=1210240753"