Wikipedia:Featured article review/Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4[edit]

Notified: Gerda Arendt, Thoughtfortheday, WikiProject Classical music

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues mentioned at Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4#WP:FAR? Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. General
    1. well-written: lot of weasely writing and putting emphasis where it doesn't belong, e.g. (giving my thoughts when reading that in brackets): "At this time, Bach was already demonstrating ingenuity in keyboard music (well, name a few of these works then, the sources on this period of Bach's life do so – e.g. Geck mentions the Andreas-Bach-Buch and the Neumeister Chorales in this context), but Christ lag in Todes Banden is a significant milestone in his vocal music. It was completed seven years before his sequence of Weimar cantatas, begun in 1714 with [[[Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182|Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (what is the relevance of naming this one?),[1] and 17 years before he started a complete annual cycle of chorale cantatas in Leipzig in the middle of 1724 with [[[O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20|O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (again, why this one? – why not the last new chorale cantata in that cycle, the one performed a week before BWV 4 was restaged in the version we know it today?).[2]" — this style of being vague regarding the topic at hand, but giving excessive detail on topics with no more than a very remote tangential relevance to the topic pervades the whole article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    2. comprehensive: neglects a lot of the history, in favour of generalities regarding Bach that aren't even relevant to the article topic
    3. well-researched: not representative of the sources on this cantata, nor of the period when it was written
    4. neutral: off-topic detail instead of on-topic minimum unbalances article
    5. stable: unstable: article title; layout
  2. style guidelines
    1. a lead: lead section instable
    2. appropriate structure: doesn't follow the recommended structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines
    3. consistent citations: sometimes relevant page number is missing, see below on the Geck/Hargraves reference.
  3. Media. (tbd, but seems OK on first approach)
  4. Length. Not OK, it doesn't stay focused on the main topic, going into unnecessary detail and doesn't use summary style.

References

  1. ^ Dürr 2006, p. 258.
  2. ^ Dürr 2006, p. 387.

Added a "by FA criterion" overview of the issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC); expanded style-related thoughts --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggesting a source (alas in German, but with the advantage of being available without exception with one click): pp. V-VI of NBA I, 9 – introduction to score publication --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source, on the period when the first version of this cantata was written: Spitta, start of Part III (maybe also go back a bit for the end of the Arnstadt period) – (of course for Spitta always check whether more recent scholarship confirms or modifies his approach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Eidam (not available on-line) this period of Bach's life is described from the second half of the 3rd chapter to the first half of the 5th chapter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Geck/Hargraves reference the page number is not indicated, I suppose somewhere around p. 62 ff. (which has some relevant material not yet treated in the article on BWV 4) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, what had been an exciting and promising start at Arnstadt, had now turned into recriminations and disputes is another way of explaining why Bach wanted to change from Arnstadt to Mühlhausen (current explanation in the BWV 4 article: the post at the Divi Blasii was "more important", which is a very narrow view on the issue) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johann Gottfried Walther not mentioned in the article on BWV 4: nonetheless (Bach as) "... the only candidate considered seriously" only becomes understandable when at least mentioning that Walther had retracted his candidacy... and explaining why he did so (as it is in the sources on this period of Bach's life). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Brass/Woodwind distinction made in the article on BWV 4 regarding the cornetto seems rather anachronistic. The Wikipedia article on the musical instrument compares the cornetto with "... other(!) woodwind instrument(s)". This needs at least some context, or, alternatively, slimming the BWV 4 article down on that quite irrelevant distinction for early 18th-century instrumentation. Anyway, both Bach-digital and the NBA score introduction mentioned above are quite clear that trombones were only added later, and that all other assumptions regarding the instrumentation are of a speculative nature. With these sources the assumption that the scoring "... may have been similar to the surviving version" seems unjustified/speculative/weasely (weasely in the sense that the little bit of exact knowledge on that matter is replaced by something vaguish that quite obviously misses the point). Also, it is not explained why the instrumentation is "archaic"; nor does "The string accompaniment is consistent with the limited instrumental forces which Bach had at his disposal early in his career" seem justified: later in his career he would use string sections with one viola part as a standard (instead of two as in this cantata). Three trombones is also not covered if assuming both "limited early instrumental forces" and the instrumentation of the later version "similar to the surviving version". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This point regarding instrumentation has been partly addressed, but not enough to warrant striking the original remark in whole or in part. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend procedural close – As the FAR instructions state, "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here". According to the article's talk page, the FAC ended on March 11. If my math is correct, we aren't at three months yet. The thinking behind this is that issues should have been brought up during the FAC; apparently the classical music project has an article alerts system that lists new FACs, so it's not like the FAC was hidden from interested editors. I'd be inclined to make an IAR exception if plagiarism was a factor, but not for other matters that can be resolved in the normal editing process. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tx. for the clarification, however "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted" is in the intro of the FAR instructions. Also, please don't quote out of context, "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here" is only half a sentence. The full sentence is "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content." (bolding the part that was left out). The extenuating circumstances here are instability, and disruptive behaviour. Also because of the "radical change in article content": I moved the general treatment of early cantatas to Church cantata (Bach)#Early cantatas (Arnstadt and Mühlhausen) (most of it on other cantatas) and would replace it by content more specific to this cantata. That more specific content on this cantata is in the relevant reliable sources, thus the current version of the article fails WP:BALASPS miserably, and so we're back at "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like most of the changes come from edits that you made. There are some divisions among classical music editors that are well-known, and I have less than zero interest in getting involved with them (and lack subject-matter knowledge), so I'll bow out here. As a parting thought, I still don't understand why these issues couldn't have been brought up at FAC, or why this couldn't have waited a month so that the time frame of the nom would match what the instructions recommend. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re. "It looks like most of the changes come from edits that you made" – yes, the radical change is my proposal. Did I say anything different? Is that relevant?
        • Re. "I still don't understand why these issues couldn't have been brought up at FAC" – I'm not in the habit of following FACs. Just became aware of the article when working on Church cantata (Bach), because of the Early cantata (Bach) redirect that went to that article then. After dealing with the "early cantata" related content I started looking at the article, did a few edits, got reverted on a few of these, and only then realised it was a FA. The more I looked at the article, the more it seemed problematic.
        • Re. "why this couldn't have waited a month so that the time frame of the nom would match what the instructions recommend", sorry I stumbled into this so short after the FA nomination, not my fault. "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted", was what I read next, and the article sure didn't pass these standards whenever it was was promoted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to article and review process[edit]

As one of the editors involved with this article, I welcome the opportunity to improve it. I don´t really want to get involved in the debate as to whether it should have been promoted. I would say however that given the dating problems with Bach´s early cantatas, some generalities regarding the composer´s career are probably necessary in the article. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • would make that: "some generalities regarding the composer´s career are probably absolutely necessary in the article". But (e.g.) why more generalities about the Arnstadt church than about the Mühlhausen church? Why only the vaguish "some responsibility for choral music" regarding the Arnstadt period, when a more precise general description, based on extant contemporary sources, is given in relevant literature? — etc.
Anyway, would proceed with such improvements to the article ASAP, sure, that's the real focus, not the process with which such goal is achieved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I am wondering which specific keyboard works to mention in the context of the Arnstadt period apart from the Neumeister Collection. If the Passacaglia in C Minor can be assumed to have been written there, it would suggest another level of achievement. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Included in the Andreas-Bach-Buch (BDW 00664) --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also Geck source mentioned & linked above: Möller manuscript (pp. 57–58) → Andreas-Bach-Buch, mentioning Passacaglia (pp. 58–59) → Neumeister collection (pp. 59–62) → transition to Mühlhausen, mentioning BWV 4 (pp. 62–65). What I mean to say by this: we don't have to "invent" such connections (whether he wrote the Passacaglia before or after BWV 4) – the connections are in the relevant sources. With all that is known about chronology of these early works, they belong in the same timeframe – one an organ composition, the other a cantata. Readers might recognize one of the two and thus this clarifies at which point we are in Bach's development.
What one won't find, afaik, mentioned in each other's neighborhood in such sources is however BWV 4 and the cantata BWV 182, as it is currently done in the Wikipedia article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More source suggestions[edit]

  • Philippe and Gérard Zwang. Guide pratique des cantates de Bach. Second revised and augmented edition. L'Harmattan, 2005. ISBN 9782296426078
This preview of the first 48 pages of that revised edition of the Zwang catalogue describes BWV 4 on pp. 43–44 as probably the first cantata Bach wrote. Don't think the Wikipedia BWV 4 article can be complete without mining the info on these pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting[edit]

This:

was changed to:

with loss of page numbers, indicating a translation as "(in German)" (while it is an English translation), italicising the title of a short essay instead of putting it in quotation marks, and ending on no less than four parentheses, without indicating which parenthesis applies to what. Is there no more elegant solution to address this, while keeping within the ref format established on the page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural[edit]

Coord comment: In light of the short time since the article's initial promotion, I think it's appropriate to put this review on hold for now and allow more time for talk-page discussion, where some of the issues mentioned above can hopefully be addressed. If in a few weeks concerns about the article persist the review can be reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page discussions were hit by an out-of-process archiving, mid-discussion. Most of the issues persist (I struck the few that got resolved in the submissions above), so I kindly request this FAR would be re-opened, more than three months after the FA promotion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article title was again discussed in more than one place outside the article's talk page (7–21 June, 21 June), giving new impetus to the page name instability mentioned above (unstruck the issue while apparently not settled yet). @Nikkimaria: kindly repeating my request to reopen the FAR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Francis Schonken: I can certainly do that, but I think the article title issue ought to be settled with an RM discussion and I don't see much benefit to running that concurrent with an FAR - perhaps it would be best to deal with that first? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean while a discussion about the article title had been opened at Talk:Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4#Article title. I replied there, not here, in order to keep the discussion in one place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Christ_lag_in_Todes_Banden,_BWV_4/archive1&oldid=1076192332"