Template:Did you know nominations/Lobe den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren, BWV 137
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Lobe den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren, BWV 137[edit]
- ... that the trumpet plays the chorale melody in Bach's cantata Lobe den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren, BWV 137, in C major within an aria in A minor in "a battle for harmonic supremacy"?
- Reviewed: Nyorai
- Comment: Bach cantata for Trinity 12, 11 September 2011, to appear between 10 September and 16 September
Created/expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nom at 13:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drmies (talk) | Drmies (talk) | Drmies (talk) | Drmies (talk) |
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drmies (talk) | Drmies (talk) | Drmies (talk) | Drmies (talk) | Drmies (talk) | Drmies (talk) | Drmies (talk) |
- As usual, quality work from this editor. I have one gripe, maybe two. First, the sourcing is not voluminous, and if it were my article I'd have added some (more) book references, which are available--this, for instance, and this is interesting as well--which would add to the bibliography but also to the texture of the article, and it might help source the discography a bit (I like references for bibliographical and discographical items, though I realize that's not a widely-held position). Yes, I realize that I do not have access to Durr's standard work--still, more is better. Second, while I checked the hook and most of the claims with the two PDFs, that was not so easy since there are no page numbers given. (And there are no page numbers at all for Durr.) I assume all of the info is to be found on just a few pages, but it would be nice to give individual page numbers or at least a range, if you want to stick to three footnotes only. So, I am going to leave "Adequate citations" blank, since I would not be perfectly happy with it: I want page numbers, and would love to see another source (or two). If anyone else wishes to check that box because I'm too picky, they have my blessing; Gerda, feel free to let a friendlier editor loose on this to overrule me. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Another source: go to the external references, please, five more for support, Emmanuel and University of Vermont for translation, "Bach" and University of Alberta for scoring and structure, bach-cantatas for the discography, here as in the other cantatas, which I found and used as a model when I started adding one a week. For Dürr, the book is organized by the liturgical year (actually it is the source for the List, sequence and the readings) and is indexed by both BWV number and cantata number, so rather than giving the page number of my German edition I leave it open, anybody will be able to find it in translations which may have different page numbers. I provided the page number now for the Gardiner (Wolff was there already), but again, I rather use the search function for the BWV # to find the cantata in question. Unfortunately, bach-cantatas has nothing on text and tune of the choral - two refs missing that other cantatas have. I am surprised myself because it's such a famous hymn. I looked up what Christoph Wolff had to say to this cantata, but it was nothing the others didn't say. Should I add him for quantity? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that Casliber had no problem with the previous one. Thanks for addressing my concerns; sorry if I missed a page number that was already there. If that is how Durr is organized, then that's fine--I bow to your wisdom. Yes, if for instance, bach-cantatas is the source of the discography, then it seems to me it should be cited there rather than reside unceremoniously in the EL section. In general, the more is referenced the better, and moving that link from EL to REF is of benefit to the reader, in my opinion. To take another example, if Emmanuel is indeed the source for text and translation (and they are authoritative--you're a better judge of that than I am) than that deserves a note somewhere. Not a footnote for every quote, but one general note: "All text and translations taken from..." Malleus would propose that format that has separate sections for notes and references, but you can stick text and this weblink in one single footnote, for instance at the end of the "Kommet zu Hauf" sentence.
If you think I'm an Ameisenficker, ant that I am being too particular for a DYK, my apologies, but I know that you are interested in producing quality content, and my interest is to make the article even better, not to ruin your weekend--and you know your sources and you know what's in them. An additional formatting element (about text and translation for instance) is easily moved to next week's installment also. Best, Drmies (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest in quality which I share. Emmanuel is certainly no authority on the text, sometimes has mistakes, and if it was "the" source for the translation I might point that out, but sometimes the other one is better. Discography has not been referenced for any cantata I met so far, - good point, should I start it? - Thanks for the bow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to explain in the article. The problem I see is that there are rather too many sources on the Bach cantatas. The general ones (Neumann, Craig ...) are not repeated in each cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that Casliber had no problem with the previous one. Thanks for addressing my concerns; sorry if I missed a page number that was already there. If that is how Durr is organized, then that's fine--I bow to your wisdom. Yes, if for instance, bach-cantatas is the source of the discography, then it seems to me it should be cited there rather than reside unceremoniously in the EL section. In general, the more is referenced the better, and moving that link from EL to REF is of benefit to the reader, in my opinion. To take another example, if Emmanuel is indeed the source for text and translation (and they are authoritative--you're a better judge of that than I am) than that deserves a note somewhere. Not a footnote for every quote, but one general note: "All text and translations taken from..." Malleus would propose that format that has separate sections for notes and references, but you can stick text and this weblink in one single footnote, for instance at the end of the "Kommet zu Hauf" sentence.