Talk:Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103

Infobox

Several editors have reverted my attempts to format the infobox in accordance with recommendations for long lists. I attempted to compromise by substituting an alternative template for one that one editor objected to, although I disagree with her objections to the initial template. Another editor has also restored obvious errors to the article, including a claim that a recording was made in the "11960s", with no valid rationale for doing so. I invite that editor to present her reasoning for that rather strange action. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Knock off this obsession with stalking articles Gerda is improving and making this pissant reversions of helpful information. You are showing immense disrespect to an editor who is of good faith and an expert in the field with your constant WP:CHEESE behavior. The lists you are collapsing are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "long." This isn't infobox mineral or infobox Presidents. The information you keep wasting bandwidth to collapse is in small text and takes up less than a half-inch of space on my laptop screeen. Because you use complex syntax that is difficult for me to remove manually and because you also game the system by inserting intermediate edits to make reversion difficult (and to duck a technical 3RR violation) it is simpler to revert your edit-warring. Sometimes I have gone to the extra work to fix the typos and other small tweaks, but the rest of the time it's enough work just fixing your incessant attempts to harass an expert who is trying to create article that educate the little children like you, who is acting like a brat in a bubble and holding her breath until she turns blue because she can't get her own way. Now would you please GROW UP. Are you 10 years old or something? Sometimes the real grownups actually do know best, and I for one am willing to listen and grant considerable deference to an expert in the field. Unlike other editors who appear to think that because they stalk the internet and revert improvements, their attempt becomes the "stable" one Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Montana, most grownups are capable of reasonable and civil discussion. Your post is not indicative of that. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, as I'm sure you're aware, a poor argument. I've also already pointed out to you that your reference to WP:CHEESE is incorrect. Now, I'm quite willing to listen to experts, which is why I paid attention to the recommendation on Gerda's talk that "any list with more than 2 or 3 entries ought to be a collapsed list. In other words, if it can't be displayed succinctly, then don't display it unless the reader wants to". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Surprised. What has this discussion to do with the article? Please see my talk, I don't want to copy that to every Bach composition, we better discuss it on the template talk. My talk says: "I would actually recommend any list with more than 2 or 3 entries ought to be a collapsed list." This tells me that this is a personal recommendation, not a rule or guideline. I would actually recommend to openly list Bach's scoring the best we can because that is where his music sounds, and I don't find even the longest one really "long", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nikki, re-read WP:BAIT. YOU are NOT engaging in "reasonable and civil discussion" You are edit-warring, leaving deceptive edit summaries, and then baiting. You know you are twisting other people's words, skirting the edge of 3RR on a daily basis by following the letter but not the spirit of the rules, being a tendentious brat, and it's high time you learned to respect people who know - and contribute the most sound content to - articles. Gerda is an expert on Bach, one of the most good faith editors I know, and her wishes should prevail on this set of articles. She is trying to float possible compromises and you appear to be bent on stalking her all over wiki and twisting her words and her intent. I used to think you were a fairly decent good faith editor, but any more I suspect that you simply want to just prove that you are right and I have lost a lot of respect for you due to your prissy behavior. It is absolutely stupid to collapse three lines of small text in an infobox (if you were talking a couple inches, I might agree with you) and even more ridiculous to go stalking an editor just to revert her. For now, I'm just very frustrated that you raise false allegations against a very nice person like Gerda and show her no respect. Montanabw^(talk) 05:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Montana, please re-read WP:NPA. If I were showing no respect to Gerda, there would be no infobox in these articles - that's the solution I would prefer. I am trying to compromise with Gerda by finding a way to include the template content that she wants, but neither you nor she seem amenable to compromising. I'm sorry you're frustrated, but your attacks are really not helping to move the discussion forward. Please stop. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nikki. Montana is right. You are stalking. another editor. You have edit warred, for example, to collapse three lines. A compromise is not removing an info box in a Wikipedia article, that's another discussion completely. Whether Gerda is a nice person or an expert is not the issue for me. Watching this for days, I see an admin behaving in a way that is both disruptive and tendentious, slowing down good article writing. You might want to rethink your behaviour.(olive (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

I never said that removing an infobox is a compromise; what I said was keeping the infobox, with the long list collapsed, is a compromise, an effort to mediate between my preferred state (no infobox at all) and Gerda's (infobox with all details included and visible). We could also consider linking to the relevant section or truncating to instrumental parts or groups, both of which I've tried in the past. If you have another idea for a compromise feel free to suggest it. Supporting Montana's vitriol, however, is no compromise at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You are implying that your compromise to the info box issue would be to have no info boxes in this group of articles at all, and that there are info boxes, shows respect. Whether there are info boxes in any group of articles is not within the remit of any one editor, no one editor allows or disallows info boxes.

It looks to me as of you are following Gerda from one article to the next, that you are edit warring rather than maintaining a discussion until agreement is reached, and then making changes, that in some cases as little a three lines have been collapsed, and then maintained that way through edit warring. Gerda is clearly an expert in this area and often a major contributor. Respectful behaviour might be, while not a policy for sure, an understanding of another editor's considerable knowledge - that's respect, needs a dose of humble pie, and shows maturity. I'm not saying its easy to do for anyone.

Supporting Monatana will indeed, if the implications are understood, move this discussion along. What you don't seem to see is that multiple editors are saying pretty much the same things to you. That's a consensus, that's agreement, but you are ignoring them in favour of your own position and are edit warring based on your position. This is, as I said above tendentious, certainly not collaborative, looks like ownership, and is finally, disruptive.

While it takes longer and requires patience, allowing a discussion to conclude, and not edit warring, will likely in the long run produce better, more stable articles. Collaboration means that we realize content is decided by a majority, and that edit warring is a unilateral action and not a collaborative one. As an admin you should, just my opinion, be leading editors in the beahviour that creates stable articles, gaining the credibility taking such a role brings. You are losing credibility right now. I do wonder if that's what you really want.(olive (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

Infobox problem

The problem with this infobox is that it doesn't summarise the article. General readers will not understand Occasion: Jubilate or Chorale: Paul Gerhardt. In order to understand the box you have to read the article. Now, in order to be a good editor you need to understand the reader and edit for the reader — these articles are not for private enjoyment. --Kleinzach 07:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not the same as a lede. The WP:LEAD is the summary, an infobox conveys other critical information in a concise manner I often compare to Infobox mineral, which to me, a non-geologist general reader, contains mostly gibberish to my eyes. However, it is clearly a useful addition to gem and mineral articles with important scientific information. There is a parallel here. Why the classical music projects are so against infoboxes is beyond me. Montanabw^(talk) 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am interested that, as a non-geologist, you can be so certain that Infobox mineral is 'a useful addition to gem and mineral articles with important scientific information'. And, further, if you are prepared to accept it on spec on the basis that that is clearly the consensus view of geology editors, why it is that the consensus view of classical music editors (which happens to be opposite) does not deserve the same approbation? As you will gather, I myself am not a supporter of infoboxes in classical music articles; but I accept that this should be balanced against the views of editors who are largely responsible for particular articles (as in the present case).The issue here is that the infobox if it is to be used at all should surely be convenient and comprehensible by specialists and non-specialists alike. If only for the former it is just clutter.--Smerus (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have a better word for "occasion", please say so, - I think it is a common understandable word. Some works were written for a wedding, others for a liturgical function, oly very few without an occasion, - I fail to see a "problem". Jubilate and Paul Gerhardt have a link, helping those who don't know. - The place to raise concerns of a general design should be raised on the template talk, not a single occurance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I was about to do the GA review for this article to pass an idle evening, but I suggest it is better to sort this issue out first. The two queried entries in the box do seem in fact a bit mystifying as they stand. 'Jubilate' is not an occasion, nor is 'Paul Gerhardt' a chorale. I would suggest for clarity that you give Jubilate Sunday as the full text against 'Occasion', and that you change the text against chorale to 'by Paul Gerhardt'. These two small changes would make the infobox considerably more comprehensible. I would make them myself under WP:BOLD, were it not, of course, for considerations of politeness and respect.--Smerus (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Taken, thank you, that helps! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you have a solution also how to show that the Bible quote is the text for movement 1, the chorale for movement 6? In Franck texts, the Bible quote is movement 2, in some cantatas there are several, in others several chorales: it would say SO much about the structure! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In the context: please check and improve Baroque instruments to be, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing at a time! As regards the present box, I would make the following further suggestions for your consideration:

• 'BWV103' appears four times at the top of the article: in the title, in the first para and infobox, twice in the latter. This is also a bit intimidating and relentless for the innocent reader. I suggest you take it out of the top line of the info box; and that you also give a link to BWV in the infobox text.
• I suggest you change 'Bible' in the infobox text to 'Bible text' which also clarifies.
• I suggest you add '(1st movement)' after the citation for 'Bible text' and '(6th movement)' after the citation for 'Chorale'.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have another, generic point. I don't think it is relevant as regards GA, but it might provoke debate if any of the Bach cantata articles comes up for FA; namely, why do we have the BWV number in the article title at all? The standard format for Wiipedia seems to be ' Cantata name (Composer)' (or just Cantata name). Bach himself of course never called his compositions 'BWV anything'. I had thought that qualifiers in article titles should only be used where there might be issues of disambiguation. We don't, e.g. use K. numbers in Mozart composition article titles or WWV numbers for those of Wagner. --Smerus (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Starting in the end: Bach himself of course didn't even call them by what we now use instead of a title, the first line of the text (which sometimes doesn't mean anything). (Wagner gave his works singular titles, such as Der fliegende Holländer. For Mozart, we need to disambiguate many masses in C major.) The discussion about the addition of BWV number in all works by Bach (with the exceptions of the few which have an English common name) was in 2010, summary: BWV is the ONLY thing within a lot of German which tells the reader that it is a work by Bach. We need to disambiguate many (cantata title vs. two other cantata titles, vs. a motet, vs. Gloria in excelsis Deo, vs. a chorale, - let's make it consistently so. - If a piece is performed, the BWV number will always be given in a program. For that reason, I would like to keep it on top of the box, but will try to hide it in the box. (I say "try", because I am a beginner in infoboxes.) - I will try to incorporate the other suggestions. "Bible text" means changing the infobox for all Bach works, but I think it makes sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried not to show the BWV number, didn't work, will have to ask. However, in many cases we will have "related", showing more works, typically by those numbers, so perhaps it is even better to keep it. I changed to Bible text, and showed the movements, using "movement" once, assuming the next time would be understood without, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that instead of just '(6)' (which is not clear as it stands), you use '(movt. 6)' - the abbreviation will be clear from the 'Bible text' section.--Smerus (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was clear enough from the 'Bible text' section but followed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Smerus (talk · contribs) 16:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Just starting on this, and reminding myself of the GA criteria. More soon.--Smerus (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments after first read through. I see no major issues at this stage but there are a few points I would make.

• Lead. Two paras is about right for this article though the first is pretty basic. Is there the opportunity here for some context (which is lacking in the article) -e.g. 'JSB wrote X cantatas between 'date' and 'date' - this is the Zth in order of composition'? Just so one can 'place' it.

  This cantata is one of many, I found them (those covered before I got interested in the topic) with a standard lead of two sentences. I more or less kept that standard also for those cantatas which I expanded further. I hesitate to say in every one of some 200 at what time Bach composed cantatas (from 1707 to 1745), and the scholars have been unable to establish a chronological sequence even for the extant ones. These topics (including a chronological sequence following Dürr) are handled in the linked article Bach cantata, and you can sort all cantatas to your liking in the also linked List of Bach cantatas. I added his position of Thomaskantor, for perspective. I hesitate to link "second cycle" to Chorale cantatas, because it's a complicated matter: he started the second cycle with the ambition to write only chorale cantatas, but stopped after some 40 of those and returned to "normal" ones, like this one, which he later assigned to his third cycle. All this could be mentioned, as it is in BWV 68. What do you think? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• See below for topics mentioned in the lead which aren't fully explained in the body.
• I'm not sure about the translation of 'Jesus as the only doctor who will be missed' -that suggests one might remember him later. The body of the article would suggest an alternative such as e.g. 'Jesus, besides whom no doctor can be found' (or 'can compare'?).

  It's both, perhaps you can help to word that: Jesus is the doctor, besides whom no other doctor can be found, and (therefore) he will be sadly missed when he leaves as he announces. The best translations (imo) are those from Emmanuel Music (in Sources), the (very Baroque) aria text is

  "Besides You is no doctor to be found,

  though I search throughout Gilead;

  who shall heal the wounds of my sins,

  since there is no balsam here?

  If You conceal Yourself, I must die.

  Have mercy, ah, hear me!

  Indeed You do not seek my destruction,

  therefore my heart will still hope." Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Body. Clearly written, verifiable refs, no OR, appropriately neutral. That all ticks.
• Note re Infobox. I am a known anti-boxer, but respect the opinions of the main article editor to do as s/he thinks appropriate. In any case, presence/absence of infobox is not a GA criterion. Before commencing this review I engaged with the editor on the article talk page on some minor aspects of the infobox (in response to issues raised by herself and another editor), and she in fact accepted my suggestions.
• 'Broad in coverage'. I would raise again here the issue of context. The article is highly (and appropriately) descriptive of the cantata itself but doesn't say anything about it in the context of Bach's other cantatas or his works as a whole. Maybe there's not a lot to say - the cantatas are largely terra incognita to me - but I for one would find some perspective helpful - is this possible?
• And this leads me to the comments made above re the lead. You have a sentence there- 'the movement combines the elements of the text-related motet with the new form of the concerto' which you just more or less repeat in the body. I would have thought this could be expanded and explained a bit - I am guessing that the 'concerto' elements are the ritornelli (?), but this is not clarified in the text.

  This again is a very general aspect of music history that cantata developed from motet by giving more and more weight to independent instruments. Do you know an article that explains it? "Concerto" is understood (in German) as a term for music where different groups play in concerto fashion, for example the oboes "against" the strings. I wonder if Concerto grosso might be a good link. Gerda Arendt (talk)

  I slept over this, see below, Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Minor quibble - 'redacted' is a bit abstruse - 'edited'?

  If that is strong enough for using only 2 lines of four, and those 2 changed? My English is not good enough in such matters, and any help is appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Have to nip out now; more tomorrow.--Smerus (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure: learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Second round.

• Yes, I think theinformation in BWV 68 is the sort of thing you should include.

  I will but probably not today. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• I would go for 'Jesus, besides whom no doctor can be found'.

  That misses the "going to miss" aspect, related to the Farewell discourse. I would rather drop the "doctor" in the lead. Gerda Arendt (talk)

fine, it's your article!--Smerus (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The 'concerto' aspect - this really does some expansion for the general reader. The word 'concerto' genreally suggests to English lay readers the romantic concerto, I think. We shouldn't be writing for specalists here, especially in a GA. Think about this. I tentatively suggest that, in the section 'Music', you take the last sentence of the second paragraph (the Durr quote) and use it as the start of a new second paragraph, ('According to AD, the architecture of the first movement...') in which you explain it a bit more. (in what way was concerto 'new' -what were outline characteristics of the concerto form- etc.). In this way references to ritornello etc. will be easier going for the lay reader. Then have the para starting 'The opening chorus...' as the third para of this section. By the way, it should read 'The opening chorus has an unusual structure' (not 'is an unusual structure'). Hope this is clear.

  It is clear but also will take time in rest, Gerda Arendt (talk)

  I slept over this. I would follow if this was the first cantata to introduce "concerto" format, but it's rather the opposite, that he incorparated elements of the motet, it's still a "concerto" of different groups of performers, vocal and instrumental. Perhaps we need something about it in the general articles, but I see no need to enlarge on it in every case he does such such a thing in a cantata. Quoting from Bach cantata: "Bach did not follow any scheme strictly, but composed as he wanted to express the words." Gerda Arendt (talk)

Noted--Smerus (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• 'redacted' - I would say on the basis of your comments, e.g. 'drastically edited, for example, in movement 4, excising two lines of the four and rewriting the other two.'

  Can you help me to understand that word better, - I think I saw it in "Don't redact other peples' comments" or so, Gerda Arendt (talk)

  Good! Gerda Arendt (talk)

• NB Pictures. Much as I admire John Eliot Gardner, he already appears in GAs for BWV76, BWV 22,and BWV 36. I would go for something different! And possibly more than one. Why not put a pic of the church in the infobox (advantage of a colour pic), the pic of von Ziegler in the text, and e.g a pic of a flauto piccolo?

  He is my greatest inspiration, and there is no one of Hofmann or Wolff, who would be the next choices. I like the link to present time. Lead: the coloured picture of the Thomaskirche is only for feast days, and not liked at all by Matsci, as not historic. Also: do we know which church? On feast days they were performed in both, Thomas and Nicolai, compare BWV 40, but on the other Sundays they alternated. In the lead pic, we try to get as precise as possible, and she is the only female contemporary librettist, as far as we know ;) - I will look for an instrument, the little flute would be good, but probably you see its size only in comparison. Gerda Arendt (talk)

Fine, whatever pics you think appropriate, and wherever as you like, just so there's some variety! --Smerus (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Awaiting your responses before further comment (don't worry,not much!)--Smerus (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Third round.

Unfortunately in the revisons, which seem fine as regards content, there are a few new problems as regards English usage -

Lead. 1st para. Better, 'the third Sunday after Easter, Jubilate Sunday'. (i.e. in full).

None of the source says so, Dürr and Gardiner agree on "Jubilate", Wolff has "'Jubilate' Sunday", I show both now, - don't like a mix of Latin and English too much. Gerda Arendt (talk)

2nd para.

'namely' should I think be 'notably'. (? German nämlich ?)

in German it would be "namentlich" or "besonders" or "vor allem". Gerda Arendt (talk)

'in the fugal choral singing' - do you mean 'within a fugal choral setting'?

I don't know ;) - I hear it, therefore used singing, but changed, Gerda Arendt (talk)

'usual concerto form' - I would suggest 'typical concerto grosso form' (you have 'concerto grosso' as the link anyway, so show it in the text).

The more I read the less I think it's a good link, it covers only instrumental, what can we do? As you remarked above, "concerto" is even more general, covering romantic solo concertos more than anything else. (In German we can make a difference by calling that Konzert.) Gerda Arendt (talk)

'named a doctor as no other can be found' - I suggest 'characterised as a doctor whose like cannot be found'.

"Characterised" seems to precise, referring to Jesus. I tried a change. Gerda Arendt (talk)

The sentence beginning 'In contrast he scores....' - I think this means 'He scores a trumpet in only one movement, a coloratura aria expressing joy at the predicted return of Jesus'. 'Coloraturas', whilst technically correct to a connoisseur, would mean to an average English speaker 'ladies with high voices'.

"Coloratura aria" might tell the average reader Gilda or Lucia di Lammermoor, therefore I suggest to drop the word in the lead. Gerda Arendt (talk)

History and words. (My suggestions in bold)

Para 2 end ' unusual exceptional workload of creating the SJP'

Para 3 'Bach composed chorale cantatas for each week between......

Not only for each week: for the high holidays three consecutive days each, plus several saint's days

Para 4: 'Her own poetry reflects , in a sequence of recitatives and arias , in two movements , the sadness about at the loss of Jesus, and in two others the joy about at his predicted return.'

Para 5. You write 'Bach first performed the cantata' which might suggest to the unifromed that he gave a solo version. ? 'Bach first led a performance of the cantata...'?

He also played, so "led" is not quite correct. About 100 cantatas have this wording, and by para 5 the reader should be informed enough ;) Should we perhaps add "with the Thomanerchor"? Gerda Arendt (talk)

Music.

Para 2.

' which includeswith an arioso passage for the bass voice inserted'

'rich in chromaticism '.

'bBut the world...'

the ritormello is repeated completely in its entirety.

Can you find some other words for 'coloratura' and 'coloraturas' (see comments above under Lead).

It is the word the sources use. Gerda Arendt (talk)

Hmm - that's it, I think, for now - awaiting your responses ---Smerus (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's an image of a flauto picolo which seems to be free under Creative Commons (CC BY-SA) --Smerus (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the pic find and your specific comments. I took what I didn't comment. It's fortunate that you help me, please don't say "unfortunately" again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Commercial break.

I'm waiting now, Gerda, until you've completed any further changes you intend to make. It looks to me as if there may still be some to come, but if or when you believe you have come to the end of the process, let me know. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I did what I could and left some questions for you, such as if the choir should be mentioned. "Concerto" should be handled in "Bach cantata" and "Concerto", not in this cantata. I will ask for help with the pic, but think it would be nice but not vital, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

---

A few minor language issues now remain, to make the text standard English.

History and words.

Para 1, last line: I suggest 'basis', rather than 'base'.

Para 2, last sentence: 'at that time' is better than 'then'.

Para 5: Your proposal 'with the Thomanerchor' is a good one.

Music

para 2. Sentence 1. I suggest ' a ritornello, after which', instead of 'a ritornello, then'.

Sentence 3. I suggest 'with a sudden tempo change to adagio', instead of 'suddenly adagio'.

Last sentence in para 2: delete 'to combine elemtents of the text-related motet with the new form of a concerto' , which you have rewritten more clearly in the next phrase. Only what is now not clear is exactly what it was that Bach 'typically used' - the motet or the concerto? I suspect the motet, in which case the sentence should read something like 'a text-related motet that Bach typically used, with the form of a concerto....' (or the other way round if I have got it wrong).--Smerus (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

All taken but the last one, for which I will need your help one more time. What you ask me to delete is what Dürr wrote. Bach typically used concerto, motet was already old-fashioned. Would this be better: According to Alfred Dürr, the architecture of the movement is a "large scale experiment" to combine elements of the older style of a text-related motet with the typical form of a concerto of instrumental groups and voices."? Improvement welcome. Pic: I found this but it's of course more than 200 years after Bach's time. - A farewell is hard to illustrate, otherwise I would like a pic related to the Gospel. I would drop Gardiner for this time if he was not quoted, but he is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the choir is cute! but as you say not of the period!

I didn't ask to delete what Durr wrote! only your repetition of the same phrase - thus -

According to Alfred Dürr, the architecture of the movement is a large scale experiment to combine elements of the text-related motet with the new form of a concerto, combining elements of the older style of a text-related motet with the form of a concerto of instrumental groups and voices that Bach typically used.

Then I wasn't sure exactly what the last bit of the sentence meant. But in line with your explanation I would propose:

'According to Alfred Dürr, the architecture of the movement is a large scale experiment combining elements of the older style of a text-related motet with the form of a concerto of instrumental groups and voices, as typically used by Bach.'

Apologies for being at cross-purposes over this. I note what you say about the pics, so this sentence is the only outstanding issue.--Smerus (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

no apologies, I like the love of detail, your suggestion went to the article, thanks for your interest! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   all dealt with

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I had some reservations about the image of Gardner being used, as it is in other Bach Cantatas which have GA status. There is perhaps some risk of Bach Cantata GA articles becoming stereotyped. But this is not a relevant deciding factor for GA. And as the editor points out, Gardner is quoted in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congrats!.--Smerus (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)--Smerus

   Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)