Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Bach cantata, again, his very original approach to set the Magnificat by using the German, partly paraphrased version and quoting the Gregorian chant tune, - the only time he did such a thing: write a "chorale fantasia" not on a rhymed hymn but the chant. He did so at the beginning of his most ambitious project, the chorale cantata cycle, of which the work is the fifth cantata. I took the liberty to expand a bit on that beginning, as I compiled the chorale cantatas on Luther's hymns for the previous FAC, [[[Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125|Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). (Other "featured" Bach cantatas have included BWV 172 and BWV 165.) Expanding the article was another attempt to focus on 500 years Reformation in 2017. The article received a recent GA review by The Rambling Man. Much more could be said in an article, such as comparing it to Bach's Latin Magnificat, and about the movements, - the sources are there, but I feel it might be too much detail for general readers. I am open to discussion. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

• Oppose promotion to FA: too many idiosyncracies, and edit-warring forum shopping has begun to keep them in ([1]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  I live on voluntary 1RR, and began a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  Please keep discussions in one place: I raised the issue here, please don't open the same discussion at another forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  I didn't. I opened it before I even saw your comment here, and I believe that Classical music is the better forum than FAC. It concerns all Bach works, and it has nothing to do with FA criteria. All previous FAs on Bach's cantatas have BWV bold. It's approved quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  But you agree I opened this discussion before yours, so there's no problem in closing discussions in the two other places with a link to here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  Gerda now opened the same discussion in a fourth venue (which I promptly closed). @Gerda Arendt: please stop the forum shopping / disallowed canvassing: how many times have I linked to that guidance? How much did you learn since? Not much, apparently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  On the content and layout of the lead paragraph (which we still seem to be discussing in several places at the same time) I'd propose something in this vein:

  Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, based on Luther's German Magnificat. Consequently, the cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He composed it for the Feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724, which was the fifth occasion for a cantata of his second year in Leipzig. Like most of the other cantatas of his second year in Leipzig it was composed as a chorale cantata. In principle such a cantata is based on a specific Lutheran chorale. Luther's German Magnificat is however not a chorale: its melody is a psalm tone, and thus lacks the metre and harmonic structure which are typical for chorales. Nonetheless, the process with which Bach adopted text and melody of Luther's German Magnificat into his Meine Seel erhebt den Herren cantata was the same as the one he used for adopting chorales into the other cantatas of his chorale cantata cycle.

  Advantages of this approach:

  • Less cluttered lead sentence:
    • The translation of the text incipit is not copyrighted – it is a standard English translation of the opening sentence of the Magnificat (like the opening sentence of the cantata is a standard German translation of the same), e.g. Wikipedia uses it without reference or copyright notice in the lead sentence of the Magnificat article (hence I linked to that article from the English translation for those who are unaware of the cultural reference of this English sentence): that translation has been around way before Dellal put it on her website in 2012, so the first numbered footnote with the reference to that website can be omitted from the lead sentence (it can be put in the section that talks about the text of the cantata if it isn't already there).
    • Less boldface (less frequently used synonyms don't necessarily need boldface)
    • No explanatory footnote: such footnote can (and should per WP:ACRO) be replaced by a wikilink for the first occurrence of the BWV acronym
    • Luther (i.e. last name only) would be clear to most readers in the context, and if not the first name (Martin) would probably not help much for those readers who don't know who this person is (link would need to be clicked anyway).
  • Luther(an) context clear from first sentence (which over-all, apart from the music being composed by Bach, is probably the most significant general aspect of the context of this cantata)
  • Next I'd talk about the occasion (Visitation) and the chorale cantata format (will try something that is better organised and readable than the current lead paragraph if nobody else does so with a solution I can sympathise with) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  In a FAC, with several people commenting and making changes, you will never be able to maintain one position. The disadvantages of your lead sentence that I see are:

  • It is not consistent with other articles on Bach cantatas, FA, GA, and others.
  • Specifically: it lacks an early mentioning of time and place, for me the minimum service an article should give a reader.
  • Also specifically: It lacks BWV 10 in bold, which is 1) part of the article title, 2) an incoming link, 3) something not German, 4) distinguishing this article from Luther's.
  • I don't see the "consequently" sourced in the article, and met the term German Magnificat in none of the sources I used, so believe it's not even needed to mention it in the lead, and if mentioned, no need to bold it.

  Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Re. "...you will never be able to maintain one position" – of course this is something I welcome.

  I completed my first draft of the intro rewrite proposal now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for your suggestion. The points above, worded earlier for only its first sentence, still apply. Please see also below that the article reads too technical. A previous FAC demanded that we don't surprise the reader with the "Easter egg" church cantata (going to the highly specialized Church cantata (Bach)), but establish Bach cantata first. A random reader should be told early that we deal with Leipzig in 1724, - we can't take knowledge about where Bach did what when for granted. I'd hesitate to mention Magnificat before clarifying Visitation. Please read how strange the term Magnificat is for some of our readers, on this Magnificat talk. I'd also prefer a sense of chronology: nobody at Bach's time would have talked about a "German Magnificat", therefore I'd mention it much later, and probably not bold. That term doesn't appear in books by Dürr, Wolff and Jones, but yes in the preface by Großpietsch. To me, it looks like an attempt to set this German Magnificat apart from the Latin one, and perhaps where that is mentioned in the article would be a good position to mention the term. The greatest difference seems to be that the Latin was repeated for high holidays, and revised, while the German seems restricted to Visitation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Other suggestions:
    1. The article doesn't explain very clearly why Luther's German Magnificat isn't a chorale (it being in a bible translation is hardly the reason). FYI: Metre (hymn) explains that a hymn (or chorale) has a metre: Luther's German Magnificat has no such metre for the text, nor has the melody to which it is sung a metre in the musical sense. Hence the melody also has no Zahn number, while it is in fact a reciting tone (reciting tones have no metrical structure). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

       This point needs attention: the intro has been changed twice now regarding this (change 1 – comment 1; change 2 – comment 2)... I suppose these changes without understanding what this is about will keep recurring until the explanation in the body of the article is updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    2. Language should be clearer in the article: Luther's German Magnificat is called a chorale throughout, apart from the single sentence that says it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

       Good idea, I used now "reciting tone", alternatively with "psalm tone" (which was already there), and placed "chorale" in quotation marks to indicate it's not strictly a chorale. Do you have a suggestion for saying that Bach (of course) gave the psalm tone a meter? Can we still say "chorale fantasia"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

       Another point: while the English "chorale" seems not to include Luther's German Magnificat, the German Choral does, just compare Gregorianischer Choral, Choralbuch, Choralschola etc. That is the the culture in which Bach composed. Could that be explained? If yes, the lead seems not the right place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

       Zahn classified what he called "Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder", giving each a number. Luther's German Magnificat (and its melody) is not included in that classification. So one can safely say that it is not a "deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied", in other words (while it is certainly "deutsch" and "evangelisch"), not a chorale. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

       Do you realize that the German word Choral is not restricted to "German Protestant Hymn" (Deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied) but includes Latin chant before the Reformation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Dürr/Jones 2006, p. 32: "In ... BWV 10 ... the melody is no longer that of a hymn ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

    3. I suppose Spitta discusses the cantata somewhere? Maybe a summary of such discussion or at least a page number of where he discusses it (preferably of the English edition) would be welcome? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

       Feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

       Spitta is probably the key to the (erroneous) "c. 1940" date of the LOC website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       (ec) Good point, I will use the sources you kindly provided, but not immediately (see below), - you are also welcome to do it yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       Now two sources are added, and 1740 is not mentioned in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       Spitta's erroneous chronology is at pp. 89–99, and endnote 3 (p. 285ff.) in Vol. 3 of the English edition. In both cases BWV 10 happens to be the 25th of the listed cantatas. (for clarity this is neither of the sources Gerda mentions in her comment immediately above – this history of the chronology is not yet in the Wikipedia article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    4. [2] --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       (ec) What do you think is not complete in the sentence in "A critical edition was published by Carus in 2009", which is expanded by a clause on who edited, and another that it came with a singable version + the title of that version. Feel free to improve the grammar. - It would be more transparent (generally speaking), if you'd repeat your concerns here, instead of just a diff. - "non sequitur" - I understand it, but kindly use less Latin. I don't understand what doesn't follow, though. - Also generally: I appreciate copy-edits and suggestions, but please don't put too much in one edit, again for transparency. Thank you for striking the alleged edit-warring which was about one single revert as you say yourself below. - I would normally put such information for you and only you on your talk, but that was deemed "opened the same discussion in a fourth venue" and "forum shopping / disallowed canvassing" above. Can we try to stick to content? - This weekend, I have little time, - both "my" groups sing in a mass, + I will listen to a concert tomorrow. It's not that I neglect this, but also no rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       Sorry about the Latin... {{non sequitur}} is however the English Wikipedia name of the template that seemed most appropriate to indicate the situation (see template documentation by clicking the link). The half sentence tagged with that template is however not a continuation of the "Carus"-related sentence. That previous sentence ends with a period (followed by a reference), after which the "non sequitur" half-sentence starts without a capital letter. There is no apparent relation between the half-sentence and the preceding full sentence: they speak about different publishers (Carus vs. Bärenreiter) and different editors (Großpietsch vs. Uwe Wolf). The English translation seemingly mentioned in the context of the Bärenreiter publication ("Now my soul exalts the Lord"), is also not the same as the one mentioned for the Carus publication ("Magnify the Lord, my soul") --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       Fixed, I hope. I must have inadvertently deleted the beginning of the second sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       I see in a hidden comment that you'd like more clarification. What I see is that Großpietsch is named editor of the Carus edition, which I think is no conflict to Wolf being chief editor, - the chief editor can't do everything. The later Bärenreiter clearly lists Wolf as the editor, but do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited? - Could you please raise questions here, not in a hidden comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       Re. "do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited?" – I don't know, but it seems rather unlikely that Wolf, while being a Chief Editor at Carus, would produce a new critical edition for Carus' competitor Bärenreiter. My guess is that Bärenreiter recycled Wolf's 1995 critical edition of the score (I also don't suppose the English translation of the libretto was a new one for the 2015 publication), and published it with a new introduction (the introduction of the 2015 edition is not by Wolf), thus producing something that could be sold as "new". Now, none of this can go to Wikipedia's mainspace without references to reliable sources (the story might still be different from what I suppose it to be), but that Wolf would have produced "another" critical edition for Bärenreiter's 2015 publication, i.e. another one than the one he had produced in 1995, is currently unsourced (no reliable source seems to say that), and what reliable sources say seems to go in another direction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       I tried it differently, making it a reissue. Where would we find if the first NBA had an English version? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

       NBA editions are in German exclusively (not a word in English before the NBArev sequel). Here's what usually happens: a NBA volume is, on first publication, a new critical & Urtext edition, usually containing several compositions (e.g. 4 or 5 cantatas). Shortly after that, Bärenreiter publishes (outside the "complete editions" series, so in this case outside the NBA set of publications) extracts (e.g. separate cantatas), performance parts, translations, vocal scores (i.e. voices with a piano reduction instead of the full orchestral score), etc. based on the new Urtext (they don't wait 20 years with that). I documented that for Bach's Magnificat (see Magnificat (Bach)#20th century, start of second paragraph of that section). I suspect the English translation of BWV 10 being published in the late 20th century, with maybe the only new addition to the 2015 publication being a new introduction (if such introduction contains some updates to the former critical commentary the whole publication can be sold as a "new" critical edition...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

       I thought the "reissue" solved that problem, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

       Yes and no: what we get now is a somewhat WP:WEASELy declaration that may or may not be correct: I "suspect" the English translation of the 2015 edition not being new at that time, but for a FA grade article I expect clear information: when was that particular English translation first published (still possible that Bärenreiter had a new English translation produced for their 2015 edition), and who was the translator? I suppose some footwork is needed, e.g. Anna-Lena Bulgrin's introduction of that edition may be enlightening (is there no way to find it in a library or so?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

       I don't believe that we need the name of the translator, nor the date of translation. Nice to have, when available, but not adding much, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Re. "hidden comment":

       1. It is not "hidden", it shows up on mouseover (one does not need to go to edit mode to read it);
       2. Sorry, was in a hurry when I wrote it
       3. Nonetheless, I'll use tags and/or comments here whatever works most efficiently to make clear what a problem is (won't write a paragraph here when I see a straightforward issue that can be made clear with a simple tag) and/or will solve the issue myself when I have time to do it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       I had no idea about the mouseover, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    5. "He performed it at least once more in the 1740s":
       1. This sentence is in the Readings, text and tune section: a first suggestion is to place this somewhere else in the article or, alternatively, update the section title while this information doesn't fit in the readings, text or tune domain. The same goes for the preceding sentence ("Bach first performed the cantata on 2 July 1724"): that information is already elsewhere in the article, with other references (so maybe this sentence can be removed from this section, and applicable references grouped with where this information is first introduced after the lead section). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

          Good point, a section "Performances" might be a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

          For now, the performance on 2 July 1724 is mentioned early, and no other because doubtful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

          Currently the article provides the context of the Visitation/Magnificat compositions of 1723 (period of Bach's first cantata cycle) – maybe an idea to cast that "context" net a bit wider: Magnificats and Visitation cantatas associated with Bach which were performed in Leipzig before his first cantata cycle and/or after his second cantata cycle (if solid sourcing turns up for a 1740s performance of BWV 10 that can be added to the overview):

          1. 1715 or earlier: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV Anh. 21 (Nicknamed "Little Magnificat", BDW 01329, by Bach's predecessor Melchior Hoffmann)
          2. Visitation cantata (no date): Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189 (the text of this cantata is a Magnificat paraphrase, its composer may be Bach or Hoffmann, and the cantata has audio files at Commons)
          3. Visitation 1725: Meine Seele erhebet den Herrn, BWV deest (BDW 01672, libretto extant, not certain whether Bach composed its music – if so it may belong to his third cycle)
          4. Visitation 1726: Der Herr wird ein Neues im Lande, JLB 13 (BDW 08303, performed by Bach, associated with his third cycle)
          5. Visitation 1728: Meine Seele erhebt den Herrn (libretto extant, third cantata of Bach's fourth cantata cycle)
          6. c. 1733 (Visitation?): second version of the Magnificat, BWV 243
          7. Early 1740s: Bach copies and modifies Caldara's Latin Magnificat for performance (the modified movement is BWV 1082, i.e. BDW 01268)
          8. Around 1742 Bach copies a Latin Magnificat for double SATB choir (BWV Anh. 30, BDW 01338)

          Not sure whether all of these need to be mentioned, but at least the Visitation cantatas of 1725 and 1726 seem interesting enough to mention (if we mention the Magnificat/Visitation cantatas of the preceding first cycle, seems only logical to also mention those of the ensuing third cycle). I'd only mention the early 1740s Latin Magnificats if a repeat performance of Bach's German Magnificat around the same time can be ascertained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

          Feel free to write that section, and be a conom. I thought that it was good to know what Bach had done before (not later). The readers interested can find most of the information in Church cantata (Bach) under Visitation. This article is for readers of this cantata. Again, what do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       2. Gardiner 2010, the only reference given for the 1740s performance, is a concert program (CD booklet of a concert recording?) that doesn't cite any research as basis for its assertions. I submit that a concert program or liner notes not citing any sources are insufficient WP:V-wise for this assertion (not even talking about the possible COPYVIO of the site that presents the PDF of this text linked to from Wikipedia). This ties in with "1740"-related issues probably based on obsolete 19th-century assumptions already mentioned before: sources contradict, and Wikipedia's current partial rendering of that contradicting information appears (at least) confusing to the reader and/or substandard for a FA candidate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

          The information about a second performance "1740s" or "between 1740 and 1747" is found in many other sources, even distinguishing use of the CF instrument in #5 for both versions. I will look. Comment out so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

          Suggesting two more sources (mentioned at the Bach Digital Work page 00012):

          • Dürr Chr 2 (i.e. "Alfred Dürr. Zur Chronologie der Leipziger Vokalwerke J. S. Bachs, 2. Auflage: Mit Anmerkungen und Nachträgen versehener Nachdruck aus Bach­-Jahrbuch 1957. Kassel, 1976"), p. 16.
          • NBA I/28.2 – Critical report (1995), p. 67

          Alas I have currently access to neither, but they may be instrumental in getting the confusion sorted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

    6. "Selected recordings" section
       1. I don't like to see the word "Selected" in a section title: a "selection" is always someone's POV, thus in most cases not compatible with the WP:NPOV content policy. Suggested title for such a section: either "Discography" or "Recordings". Neither or these titles suggests necessarily a full list of *all* recordings, but it is more open-ended for future updates. Also: what if the list of recordings happens to be "complete"? – calling it a "selection" seems silly then. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for the actual guidance of what I'm trying to explain in short with my own words here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

          Selected recordings is the present title in all Bach cantata articles (including FA and GA) where the listing is not complete. Would you have a better suggestion? Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete. I'd be interested what others think. The selection here (of those listed by Bach-Cantatas) was made because a complete list seems too long. The criterion is simply that the conductor is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The more complete listing from Bach-Cantatas is easily seen and can be compared, and more added, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete" – imho your understanding is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

       2. The current selection criterion for inclusion in the list (being listed "on the Bach-Cantatas website") is imho a wrong approach. Each listed recording should have its own reference, and for a FA candidate I expect more than a copy-paste (with added layout and wikilinks) of a list found elsewhere on the web. Has none of these recordings, for instance, been discussed in a magazine like Gramophone? Wikipedia should give more information than just a plain list copied from elsewhere (see e.g. the 7th point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

          The section appears like that in most other articles on Bach cantatas, including FA (exception BWV 4) and GA. It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles. It would be no problem to give each line it's reference, but seems needlessly complicated. - What would a review add? Should we link to the complete cycles of some of the conductors? It's in Bach cantata, and some have their own articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles" – too much of a "let's create a WP:LINKFARM" argument to my taste. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

          Revisiting this suggestion: the situation is a bit more complicated (and worse) than I thought: a Wikipedia editor selected (without clear selection criteria) 15 recordings out of the 21 at the Bach cantatas website:

          1. It is wrong to base a selection on a single source (e.g. this webpage lists over 30: some are obviously re-issues, but the Bach-Cantatas website is not the only one listing recordings) – this is what I already wrote about above
          2. Any list should have clear inclusion criteria: "some Wikipedia editor made a selection" is the opposite of such clearly established criteria (e.g. if in 2018 there is a new recording issued an editor shouldn't have to wait until the Bach-Cantatas website is updated before they can add it to the list in Wikipedia) – for that that reason I added a tag to the article ([3] oops, made a typo in the edit summary, this is in fact additional suggestion No. 6). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

             See above: the selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor. - The listing is compatible with other FA articles. - I don't see anybody writing a PDF of that list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

             Re. "selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor":

             • These selection criteria are not clear for the reader of the article (thus falling short of the guidance on introductory paragraphs for lists)
             • Notability is not "inherited" (I): the most famous conductor does not necessarily make the most memorable recording for every work they have on their repertoire, or the other way around: the most memorable recording is not necessarily made by the conductor that is over-all most famous.
             • Notability is not "inherited" (II): this is also a Wikipedia principle regarding notability (see e.g. WP:Notability), thus this would make a bad selection criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
             • Further, was Ton Koopman a famous conductor in the 20th century (his 1999 recording is listed) but no longer in the 21st century (his 2003 recording is not listed)? – so the criterion, besides being questionable, further also appears to have been applied subjectively... --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

             You may not like it but the way to present the recordings has a tradition of more than ten years (long before I edited), compare 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015. If you want to change it, approach the project. This article should be consistent with other articles on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

             Re. "the recordings have been listed in such a way for more than ten years" ([4]) – the rules for such lists have changed a lot in the last 10 years, so much so that until this morning a relevant policy page linked to sections in guidance which no longer exist (instead of linking to the up-to-date guidance). The discography section has to conform to current guidelines when considering a FA promotion today. Whether or not it conforms to former or outdated guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style – I don't see why one should talk to a project that declares its guidance dormant while policy- and guideline-level guidance is available) is not the assessment we're making today. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

             Several FAs are like this (I don't count, but must be more than five, some listed above, for comparison). Around 150 cantatas are like this. I talk about tradition and consistency for the reader. If we get new rules which I think are detrimental for the reader, I will question them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

       3. The last column of the table ("Instr.") gives in fact additional information, not found on the Bach-Cantatas webpage. That information is however completely unreferenced (as the only reference for the entire section is to that Bach-Cantatas webpage). Hence my suggestion to give individual references per row, in which case the reference should at least cover all information of the row. However, see also my suggestion in 7.2 below if wanting to avoid footnotes in the table itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

          The information about period instruments is taken from the article about the ensemble. References could be copied from there, but it seems blowing up the sourcing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Most of my line of approach above can be summarized by pointing out that the current "Selected recordings" section seems to be failing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines (e.g. "...it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points", see also suggestion 7.2 below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

    7. Provisions for a table-less layout: Wikipedia's PDF export function omits all tables, so it makes sense to check whether the article would work sufficiently well without them. I have two suggestions in that respect:
       1. Explanations about tables that are in the article (a table's legend, or, for instance the second paragraph of Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#Structure and scoring: "In the following table ... ") can be enveloped in an otherwise invisible table so that the table-less version of the article doesn't give an explanation about a "table" that isn't there. Here is the syntax that can be used:

          {|
|-
...[table explanation goes here]...
|}

       2. A table's content can be summarized (with adequate references) outside the table's syntax: for instance the section on recordings can have an introduction mentioning some recordings that have additional sources (that is outside being listed at the Bach-Cantatas website). This has a double advantage: the table doesn't need to be cluttered with footnotes, and in those layouts where no tables are shown at least the recordings that received most press coverage are mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    8. The reception of a piece is about more than scores (manuscripts + editions) and recordings. E.g. at the 2003 Leipzig Bach Festival Ton Koopman presented three Magnificats (BWV 10, BWV 243a and a Magnificat by Bach's predecessor Kuhnau) in a concert. A video recording of that concert was released in 2004. Both the 2003 concert (e.g. Yo Tomita) and the recording (e.g. Klassik.Com) were reviewed. The DVD is currently not selected for inclusion in Wikipedia's list. IMHO the BWV 10 article currently misses a "Reception" section where the reception topics can be treated more comprehensively than just "scores" and "recordings". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

       What would be interesting would be reception of the piece when it was first performed. - The reception by Bach scholars is part of the Music section. - The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music. - No other Bach cantata article has a reception section, but feel to write one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Re. "The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music": the same can be said about Scheibe's 1737 review of Bach's own performance – this has nothing to do with "in our time". The topic of reception is, in part, about how taste w.r.t. a piece evolves over time. This includes whether a specific performance of the piece receives attention via independent reviews in reliable sources (a new recording that is completely ignored in the press is thus somewhat less significant for reception history, except maybe for number of copies sold). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

    9. [5] – is this German version of the Gloria Patri specifically Luther's (it is not a part of Luke 1:46–55)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       I was sure that the Kleine Doxology was also translated by Luther, as so many other texts, but found no support so far. I asked an expert, User:Rabanus Flavus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    10. Navbox collapse options (one of the idiosyncrasies I had in mind in this section's OP – I'm not sure whether the topic is part of a FAC assessment, anyway here it goes): the article currently has two navboxes, {{Church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} and {{Bach cantatas}}. The first of these boxes is collapsed, the second is uncollapsed. The first lists the cantata BWV 10 in the context of Bach's second cantata cycle, so between the 4th and the 6th chorale cantata of Bach's second year in Leipzig; the second navbox lists the cantata in the context of the numerical values of the BWV catalogue, so between BWV 9 (composed a decade later) and BWV 11 (which isn't even a cantata, and also dates from much later). Currently the article goes in great detail about the first five cantatas of the second cantata cycle, linking to the four other cantatas of that series of consecutive cantatas. A reader who might be interested what Bach did next after the first five cantatas of his second cantata cycle (so the next cantata he composed after BWV 10) is not helped by the second navbox, neither is that cantata linked from the body of the article. For clarity: BWV numbers are completely random w.r.t. what happened in Bach's time and w.r.t. subgroups of cantatas by type, and moreover the latest published version of the BWV catalogue no longer collates all compositions according to their numerical value (case in point: in the latest printed edition of the BWV catalogue BWV 11, the one that follows BWV 10 in the second navbox, is now collated between BWV 249b and BWV 250 – see pp. 282–284 of the 1998 edition of the BWV catalogue – officially the number of BWV 11 has been changed to "BWV 11/249b->" to indicate its new position in the catalogue). The second navbox is probably of great use for Wikipedia editors who regularly edit articles on Bach's vocal compositions, but as far as I can assess of less use (or at least somewhat misleading in the context of current scholarship) to the average reader. My preferred option is to autocollapse both boxes. If, however, one of them should be preset to its uncollapsed state it should, imho, be the first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

        There are two navboxes, right. One is in every article on a Bach cantata, permitting convenient access to the other numbers. To have it open is another item of consistency. In order to see what Bach did before and afterwards, a reader can simply click on "show" in the other navbox, or - what I would do - don't use a navbox but read an article, such as Church cantata (Bach), Chorale cantata cycle, Bach cantata, - enough possibilities. All these articles are linked from the traditional basic navbox by number (but only when it is open), - I don't use the other nabox at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

        (ec) – was still updating some of the text, underlined now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

        Re. "what I would do" – "I don't use ...": yes, as I said, this is about idiosyncrasies. In this case deplorable idiosyncrasies, e.g. neither Church cantata (Bach) nor Chorale cantata cycle nor Bach cantata has any significant information on the next cantata in the cycle. The first of these proposed links is particularly unhelpful for finding any information on the next cantata in the cycle: the 5th and the 6th cantata of the 2nd cycle are in entirely different sections of that very long page, separated by dozens of subsections. A non-specialist reader would have no clue where to look. Currently the presentation of the navboxes is skewed towards the specialist editor of these cantatas (i.e. an editor who knows that the BWV numbering is in no way a logical organisation of these compositions – which a non-specialist reader/editor would not know, e.g. [6]), and I propose to treat a non-specialist reader/editor at least on the same footing as a specialist (i.e. both navboxes collapsed: I don't propose to uncollapse the first – but if anything, per user-friendliness principles a non-specialist reader/editor should get precedence over a specialist editor because a specialist would find their way around anyhow while the same can not be presumed of a non-specialist, but as said, that's not what I'm proposing to implement: just treat the specialist and the non-specialist on the same footing).

        Re. "I still believe the article is better without this outlook to something created later ... under a header it doesn't fit" ([7]) – The cantata for Trinity IV of a cantata cycle which would have contained ideally over 60 cantatas, covering more than a calender year, and starting with Trinity I, is situated at the "Beginning" of the cycle. Unless you mean "by composition date" of the first cantatas that ultimately got inserted into the cycle: in that case BWV 4, composed over a decade earlier would be "beginning" of the cycle: that cantata is not mentioned, so there's nothing unusual when indicating the cantatas for Trinity I–V, and for the two feasts that usually fall in this period, as the "beginning" of the chorale cantata cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

    11. Re. "... the ref that I believe is best in detail and accuracy is: [8]. If you find a recording that is not in, write to Mr. Oron, and will include it." ([9]) – I too think that Mr. Oron's website is a great resource. However, in Wikipedia surroundings, it is not the most unquestionable of reliable sources:
        • The website hosts a lot of copyvio material. When using the website it is often a thin line not to cross the Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works policy (e.g. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...")
        • As the website contains material copied from Wikipedia there's a danger of WP:CIRCULAR references to it (at least in one instance I had to remove material from Wikipedia while it was referenced exclusively to Mr. Oron's site, where it was referenced exclusively to Wikipedia...)
        • Mr. Oron's website isn't always clear about its sources (e.g. "2^nd performance: 1740-1747 - Leipzig", see suggestion No. 5 above). Some of its content is referenced to discussion pages (see next point)
        • The website's discussion pages are somewhere in between of "peer review" (which would indicate reliability) and "user-generated content" (generally insufficient to be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia) – it is not always clear which one of these applies foremost.
        • Its original content is generally "self-published" (Mr. Oron being as well author, editor and publisher of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page) – WP:ABOUTSELF is the policy governing the use of self-published sources, indicating that original content of the Website can not be used in Wikipedia (unless in some cases where Mr. Oron writes about himself)
        • The website occasionally contains inaccuracies (if not errors), which I found out by consulting reliable sources and comparing these to the website's content.
        • PS: the reason I don't usually "write to Mr. Oron" is that I'm foremost a Wikipedia editor, not wanting to create more WP:CIRCULAR content on the other website. Each their own responsibility: the more Mr. Oron's website becomes reliable without our help, the more we can use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw

• Comment: I will do a FAC review on this article when the above issue settles down, but I find the above discussion a bit of a red herring, as the "oppose" !voter made a set of substantial changes in the article and then !voted after he was reverted. Thus a clean hands problem exists. It is inappropriate for an "oppose" !vote to be made by someone who has made a substantial contribution, particularly a large set of edits right before his !vote, particularly where the same editor had only made three edits to the article prior to it going up for FAC. Here any claim of "edit warring" fails spectacularly because the party responsible for creating this problem is also trying to poison the well with his !vote --particularly in light of also removing admonishments about NPA from his talkpage. Montanabw^(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  ? – none of my "substantial" changes were reverted (only one of the "minor" ones). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  Poor grammar. Three minor changes way back appear to have been kept, but when your group of massive changes were reverted, then you !voted. Can't have it both ways, cannot both make a bunch of contributions and vote -- you're involved. Montanabw^(talk) 11:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  @Montanabw: please recuse yourself from performing a FAC review on this article:

  1. You continue to contend that my "group of massive changes were [sic] reverted" (FYI: poor grammar, "group" is singular), which is not what happened – your judgement seems clouded
  2. I've shown my willingness to improve the article, and I've, for instance, received multiple "thanks", not only for the improvements I operated on the article in mainspace, but also for my suggestions for further improvements. Your indication that such improvements are not appreciated pollutes the air and stifles further work, which remains necessary to get this article to FA grade

  Until the current issues are sufficiently addressed I think I'm perfectly entitled to oppose promotion to FA, and I'll continue to collaborate positively in whatever way I can to make that promotion possible. Also, please note Gerda's invitation above: "Can we try to stick to content?", so I suggest to discontinue this discussion of whodunits, which, as you may notice, has been continued by you only in these last few days. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  Francis Schonken Your suggestion that I recuse is ridiculous; I have never edited this article, and all I pointed out is that first you made a bunch of edits to an article you had barely touched before, then when you were reverted, you !voted "oppose." That was rather WP:POINTy of you. One can edit the article, or one can review, one cannot do both. You have no neutrality in this matter, and if anyone should recuse, it is you. So, you want to close this matter, you are welcome to recuse yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Magnif.jpg: what is this being transcribed from? A previous notated version? A recording? Memory?

The text is applied to the given psalm tone, - always the same melody, just a different distribution of the syllables. It's a 2010 image I took from Tonus peregrinus, which quotes the German Magnificat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that the image is there, but how was the image produced, specifically? From what source was the specific distribution of syllables used here derived? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We discussed the content of that image some time ago, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example. That discussion contains two external links afaics, maybe one of these (or both) could be used to demonstrate that the content of the image is correct? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In that discussion, the source was given as "Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch, Nr. 529. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530". Could someone who knows how add that to the commons? (I corrected Evangelisches to Evangelische.) I looked in the current EG but can't find it, only in a regional edition of Thuringia. The Catholics have a different German version, and a similar tune, but simplified (beginning with F G instead of A C, and the second line right on G without the preceding A C, - so much less joyful, and not what Bach used), GL 631/4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I just changed the "source" parameter at commons:File:Magnif.jpg from "Olorulus' personal library" to "Olorulus' personal library, from 'Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch', Nr.529. Berlin: Evangelische[s] Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530 (see wikipedia:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example)" – @Nikkimaria: does this cover all of your concerns regarding the use of this image in the FA candidate article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg was improved by Rabanus Flavus, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

PS: for clarity File:Magnif.jpg has now been replaced by File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg by Rabanus Flavus ([10]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to find a freely licensed performance that could be sampled? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Where would I look? - I guess everybody interested would be able to find YouTube versions, example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Some ideas:

1. I performed a check of Commons as thorough as I could, not finding any audio file that would be remotely eligible for use in the article on the cantata :(
2. scores:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)#Synthesized/MIDI has a synthesised (trumpet/organ) version of movement 5. It is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (is that compatible with the Commons licensing policies if one would want to upload the file there?) – whether or not it could be legally uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia I'm personally no fan of such synthesised audio for vocal/orchestral music. The IMSLP page where that audio file is available is linked from the article's External links section, so not sure whether we should do anything if we want to have at least one audio file on or linked from the Wikipedia article.
3. Similarly, CPDL has a midi file of the closing chorale at choralwiki:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Johann Sebastian Bach) – copyright: "Personal"; here also the CPDL page is linked from the external links section
4. http://www.blockmrecords.org/bach/detail.php?ID=BWV0648 is a page on James Kibbie's Bach Organ Works website with audio files of an organ performance of the Schübler Chorale based on the cantata's fifth movement. Maybe this page could be linked from Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#5, to give at least an aural impression (non-synthesised) of the cantata's music (otherwise at least a link from the external links section might be possible?)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   It is possible but belongs in the (linked) article on the chorales. I am sure that people who want to know how the cantata sounds will find a way outside Wikipedia. I hesitate to place external links, because it would be my biased choice. - MIDI is no alternative, awful, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• I added a link to downloadable audio of the entire cantata, to the "External links" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Yunshui

Just a quick review of the text:

• with the exception of verse 54 which he also kept in Luther's wording - I'd suggest " with the exception of verse 54 in which he also kept Luther's wording."

taken --GA

• a Baroque instrumental ensemble of a trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo - maybe link continuo as I for one had to look that up... it's linked later in the text, but who reads past the TOC these days?

Then I'd also to have to link violin etc, - there are all linked in Baroque instrumental ensemble, and then Baroque violin, not any violin. Please compare other articles mentioned in the intro. --GA

Fair enough - as I mentioned, it is linked later on anyway. 雲水

• He was employed by the town of Leipzig to this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training - "He was employed by the town of Leipzig in this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training" reads more easily to me.

It's probably something coming from German, where you'd first be employed, then have the position. Ideas? --GA

How about, "He was [offered/granted/given] this position as part of his employment by the town of Leipzig"? 雲水

Well, it was not offered, the town had hoped for a better man for the job, but their first two choices were not available. (Compare BWV 22, with details of the application. The sentence should clarify, that the term Thomaskantor could lead to the assumption that he was hired by a church, but instead he reported to the town, and was responsible for four churches. Would you have a better way to say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think what Kirk's done in this bit is a good solution. 雲水

• The gospel is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes, a biblical episode that is often represented in art - surely not the entire gospel; I assume this is meant to mean the Visitation?

You are right, not the whole gospel, just the passage mentioned as prescribed gospel reading for the day. I though that was clear. Ideas how to clarify? --GA

I'd just replace "gospel" with "Visitation" (and maybe include the link) - "The [[Visitation (Christianity)|the Visitation]] is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes..." 雲水

I think it's "bad enough" that Visitation links to the Feast once, then to Bach's works for it, let's not introduce a third. I tried it differently, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just adding "reading" is enough here, I think. 雲水

• At Bach's time, the German Magnificat was regularly sung in Leipzig in vespers - should be "In Bachs time..."

taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the docology - presumably that last word should be doxology?

yes --GA

• is kept in the Library of Congress since 1948 - "has been kept" agrees better with "since".

taken --GA

• Johann Andreas Kuhnau, the composer and Christian Gottlob Meißner. - I'd use an Oxford comma here, but that's more a matter of taste than correct punctuation (at present, it can be read to mean "the composer named Johann Andreas Kuhnau, and some guy called Christian Gottlob Meißner").

right --GA

• The cantata was originally published in 1851 in volume 1 of he Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA) - "The cantata was originally published in 1851 in volume 1 of the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA)"

fixed --GA

Haven't checked refs, media etc, this is just looking at the text itself (which is generally pretty readable, if a bit technical in places). Yunshui ^雲_水 13:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for good points. Could you explain by one example what you think might be less technical? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can skimp on the technical stuff - the Movements section is a good example (lots of other articles that need looking up in order to fully understand it) but without that information there wouldn't be much point in having that section. All the things that would need to be linked are linked, but just as an example, in the Movements #1 section, I would have to look up the following terms: chorale fantasia, doubling the violin, rhythmical propulsion, measures, cantus firmus, polyphony, melismas. As a non-musician it's not a super-easy read, but I would imagine the general reader of this article would have more musical knowledge than I do anyway! Yunshui ^雲_水 09:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess if such things should be explained, it should happen on a higher level, such as Bach cantata and Chorale cantata, not in every individual such work (around 200 cantatas, around 40 of them on chorales). Some of the terms I think even explain themselves, such as chorale fantasia (fantasy on a chorale) and cantus firmus (firm chant), even polyphony if you know other words starting with poly- (polygon) and ending with -phony (symphony, cacophony). Some of our readers would be bored if we try to explain measure and melisma. It's one of the great ideas of the Wikipedia links that a reader who needs it can dig deeper but the one who knows already can move on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I linked "measure" now. "It is a trio of the violins and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violin, and the viola filling the harmony." that sentence tries to explain why the many instruments play a trio (three voices): the oboes double the violins, which means they play the same thing (voice) as the 2 violins, the viola plays (only) a supportive role, leaving the bass (= continuo = a group of players) for the third voice. How would you say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe something like: "It is a trio of the violins, viola and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violins, and the viola filling the harmony." That makes the three voices of the trio clear (violin, viola and continuo) and then explains why the oboes aren't included in that list and what the viola actually does.

Sorry, I was not clear: the three voices of the trio are the two violins and the bass, while the oboes play the same as the violins, and the viola has no independent melody, just fills chords. Don't support too soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyhow, now that the above fixes have all been made, I'm happy to Support on text. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

About half done, no real issues. Some quibbles so far:

• " Composed for the Marian feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724," there seem to be words missing after "Visitation". Some grammatical connection would seem called for.
• "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Book of Isaiah the prophecy of the Messiah " I would say that there should be a comma in there after Isaiah.
• "The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the doxology." Two things, I would change the first "translation" to "rendering" or similar to avoid the repetition, and I think you need a "on" after "and" to avoid ambiguity and possible confusion.
• "He used the original verses 46–48 for the first movement, verse 54 for the fifth movement, and the doxology for the seventh movement. He paraphrased verse 49 for the second movement, verses 50–51 for the third, verses 52–53 for the fourth and verse 55 for the sixth movement, the latter expanded by a reference to the birth of Jesus." Your use of the serial comma seems inconsistent.
• There is an uncited sentence at the end of "Readings"
• "adding "Luther" for the movements kept in his translation, and "anon." if the unknown librettist elaborated on his translation. " I would avoid the repetition, possibly by changing "elaborated on his translation" to "added his own elaborations" or some such--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)