Template:Did you know nominations/Nur jedem das Seine, BWV 163
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nur jedem das Seine, BWV 163[edit]
- ... that passages of Bach's Nur jedem das Seine have been compared to the descent into earth in Das Rheingold and the love duet of L'incoronazione di Poppea?
- Reviewed: En_Canot,_Im_Boot_(Metzinger)
5x expanded by Nikkimaria (talk). Self nominated at 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC).
- comments: "parts" is a very general term, - some Bach cantatas are in one part, others in two parts, but that is obviously not meant. - Is it intended not to say Bach's "what" it is? - In this case a translation of the title would be cute. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- What term would you suggest? Neither "movements" nor "sections" would be entirely accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know it well enough. "Passages"? Perhaps just mention only one and say precisely what is compared, harmony, mood or what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Passages is fine, changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Sufficiently expanded, cited and interesting (although not to those who don't like Bach on the main page, but you can't win 'em all...) But don't you have to do a QPQ review? BencherliteTalk 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Er, yes, and it's linked in the initial nom, isn't it? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. However, on double-checking, all you've done is say that the hook is too long - you may have done a fuller review, but you don't say so, and it's been marked twice now as needing a full review. If you could complete what you've started, that would be good. Thanks. Sorry for the messing around here. BencherliteTalk 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Good to go. BencherliteTalk 10:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. However, on double-checking, all you've done is say that the hook is too long - you may have done a fuller review, but you don't say so, and it's been marked twice now as needing a full review. If you could complete what you've started, that would be good. Thanks. Sorry for the messing around here. BencherliteTalk 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Er, yes, and it's linked in the initial nom, isn't it? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
