Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80

I've listed this article for peer review because 31 October, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, is approaching, and the article should be in best shape. It had many editors since its start in 2007.

Thanks, Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Time frame

• The proposed time frame (31 October 2017, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation) is difficult to maintain if we're going to take more than a month for every sentence. @Gerda Arendt: are you prepared to put your objections against the current version of the lead sentence on hold until after 31 October, so that we can move on and would still make any chance of concluding this peer review before 31 October? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

We do what we can, if possible before the end of the month, if not, then not. So far this was (only) two "peers", you and I. If nobody else expresses concerns the lead stays as it is, unless you change your mind thinking about it. - I moved the section header, or it would look as if I wrote it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "...the lead..." – I take you mean the lead sentence: the rest of the lead section still needs some work, as I expressed multiple times, see #Reminder below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: please consider whether you could be a bit more active on the content issues: layout issues may be easier to address once the content & references have settled. As long as that hasn't happened your extensive attention to layout diverts, and keeps people away from helping out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Not that it belongs here, but my time is limited. I work on a hymn (both English and German) that proved more complex than expected. When I see something that is obviously wrong (such as two images above the infobox), I just have the time to fix it, not to start another [a] discussion. Sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please explain "...another..."? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I started this whole discussion, called peer review. I can drop "another", if it bothers you. I asked WP:Infobox (about the layout of the top, which is the first thing any reader will meet) and Brianboulton in general, because with just you and me, there will be no consenus if we disagree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well you found time to start another in the mean while, so I'm just going to ignore your so-called "I have no time" argument. Please use your time a bit more constructively. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Images

Some older questions from the article talk concern the images:

1. The lead image is at present a 19th-century stained-glass window. If you look closely, it shows Luther and Bach. I believe that it is barely suitable for the article, and certainly not for the lead, which should show something specific to the article.
2. I question the position of (whichever) lead image above the infobox.
3. The image of an inscription of the cantata incipit on the church where Bach was baptized seems also only remotely relevant to the cantata.
4. The image of the chorale tune in a 16th-century print is nothing Bach would have seen, and not readable for many of our readers.
5. I miss an image of Luther on which he is recognizable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Just started commons:Category:BWV 80 – Cantata "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott", with currently two files that may be eligible for inclusion in this article. Its subcategory (commons:Category:Art inspired by BWV 80) currently contains three images of paintings by Kopasz Tamás — not sure, however, whether the painter is notable enough internationally to include his work in, for instance, a reception history section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Re. the points above (I numbered them for ease of reference):

• Re. #1: the window is 20th-century (1966), for precision, not that that changes much either way regarding the argument made
• Re. #3: some time ago I tried to find out how old the inscription is, but couldn't – I had, however, the impression it was added much later, something to do with a Luther celebration if I remember well (there's surely still something about it in the archives of the Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach page).
• Re. #4: Bach knew the Vopelius version ([1]) – as you can see the music notation hadn't changed much since Luther's days. I think the cantata article surely could give some illustration about the hymn (more specific for the cantata than a Luther portrait), see commons:Category:Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott if something else may be more suitable. There are a few audio files with the chorale melody (even a sung version if we'd prefer to avoid MIDI-like computer sound).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

1. I should have said 20th century in the style of the 19th, sorry.
2. I feel the same about that not being "old".
3. The image is fine then. I think that the sung melody should be in the hymn's article, not here also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Re. topic #4 (#3 in Gerda's reply): I'd suggest to use an audio file with the chorale melody nonetheless: not all readers of the encyclopedia are familiar with these Lutheran hymn tunes: and it helps as a reference for a better understanding of the music (even if one doesn't read notes) when listening to Bach's cantata movements based on the tune. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: please see what I said about talk page consensus before editing below. For images, where there's always a large factor of personal appreciation by editors (while most of it is neither necessarily policy-compliant nor necessarily policy-infringing), this is even a more appropriate approach: the main policy is WP:CONSENSUS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no personal factor in thinking that two images above an infobox are at least one too many. - Please stay with your reviewer hat, not a hat to tell others what to do. A reviewer - at last to my understanding - makes suggestions, and those who initiate the review take them or leave them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a personal preference factor in how to *address* such issue. So, propose on talk, and try to find consensus for what you propose. I didn't see the prior discussions at Talk:Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80#Image and Talk:Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80#Lead image placement lead to anything useful consensus-wise: maybe try to negotiate a consensus? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been invited here to offer an opinion. There seems to have been plenty of past discussion about the lead image for this article, but I don't think the present arrangement, with the infobox pushed down into the body of the text, is satisfactory. The main point of an infobox is to give the casual reader a useful snapshot of the article's subject, and as things stand it's not doing this. My suggestion: (a) delete the small inscription image (or transfer it to the body of the article); (b) crop the window image by cutting out the two bottom panels which don't illustrate anything relating to the article; (c) place the infobox above the window image. This might just work – I suggest you try it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've cropped the window image as you suggest, thanks for that. No strong feelings either way on where or if the inscription should be, disagree on point c. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I think the cropped image might be included in the infobox, as this is a rather long article, - ignoring the request that the image there should be not "too long". I tried in a sandbox, - feel free to play. I'd do without the inscription image which is of marginal relevance for the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, as with the previous version, that sizing tradeoff doesn't work well - the image is very striking (and easier to see!) at larger size, which works best outside the template. Per above, I don't much care what is done with the inscription image either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It could be larger within the infobox. The image - as said above - strikes me as not particularly related to this cantata, - supplying no hint at the period of Luther or Bach. It would function better (not as the lead) in BWV 125 where we have a list of all chorale cantatas by Luther, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Per our previous discussion, I disagree. If you want to add it to 125 also, I have no objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Do I understand that you have reasons to think it is relevant to this particular cantata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as before. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Some possible options:

1. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
2. WP:RfC on lead image(s) and infobox options for the BWV 80 article, conducted at its talk page
3. WP:DRN with Gerda and Nikkim. as participants, and an intermediate suspension of all lead image/infobox discussions for the BWV 80 article in this peer review.

I can not suppress my disappointment that these issues of secondary importance (layout options are *always* of secondary importance compared to content issues) prevent a swift resolution of content issues. Layout options can almost never be tagged in mainspace (while their importance is so marginal in most cases, as it is here), and in the mean while there are legion tags on rather serious content issues. Really, I would be much more active in editing the article in mainspace if these all in all rather childish reiterations of layout option discussions could end: as long as they persist the editing environment is unstable and it seems best not to touch the mainspace article (unless, perhaps, with a ten-foot pole), in order not to get caught in the conundrum over the layout issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Francis Schonken proposed (compare Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10) to begin the lead with Bach's name, to not present a lot of German, then translation(s), then catalogue number, before finally arriving at something familiar. I support that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. There was no intention to set a new standard at the BWV 10 article. The more or less standardized phrase is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure:

• [Piece name] is a [work type], [opus number], written by [composer] in [date].

adding the title translation (which is usually needed for a Bach cantata), and replacing the "opus" by "catalogue", moving that one also a bit closer to the title (with the translation inserted the two would be a bit far from one another otherwise), one gets

• [Piece name] ([title translation]), [catalogue number], is a [work type] written by [composer] in [date].

I think this works fine for nearly all Bach cantatas. The BWV 10 case was a bit specific while there were two [work type]s jostling with one another ("chorale cantata" and "German Magnificat"); and then there was also the extra info on the cycle ("2nd cantata cycle") jostling with the usual time (i.e. [date]) indicator, and the involvement of Luther as translator (into German), which still needed to be translated into English somewhere. I remember turning the phrases around, not becoming anything near to "readable", leave alone "compelling", prose before we let go of the standard phrase. For BWV 80 Luther is the author of the cantata's text (like any other cantata has a text author), there's no [work type] ambiguity, the chorale tune being adopted in the cantata is all fairly standard for a chorale cantata, while the "second cycle" relation is too tenuous to explain in the opening sentence: so probably less need to deviate strongly from the standard phrasing to avoid a cluttered sentence.

Other than that I try to avoid any type of footnote (references as well as explanatory), and certainly mid-sentence footnotes, in an opening paragraph (such footnotes inevitably lead to less compelling prose), which usually is very well possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

In other words, for this cantata:

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"), BWV 80, is a chorale cantata for Reformation Day by Johann Sebastian Bach.

(The usual time indicator being replaced by "for Reformation Day" before the composer's name while the [date] is too complicated —with the earlier BWV 80a version and the uncertain composition dates of both the BWV 80 and the 80b versions— to cram in the first sentence). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

We can't have it all in one sentence ;) - I really like to begin with the familiar Bach (IAR), and to introduce "church cantata" before going into "chorale cantata". I think that the translation is how the hymn is best known in English, but "mighty" is not a good translation of "fest" (firm, solid, secure ...), and fortress is not a good translation of "Burg" (castle). I miss a noticeable BWV 80, for many readers who don't know German something they would recognize at a glance, also a prominent redirect. I'd add a location, especially we'll get to time only later:

Johann Sebastian Bach composed the church cantata Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (A secure castle is our God), BWV 80 in Leipzig for Reformation Day.

• Is everyone OK with the current version of the lead sentence? I could reply to Gerda's last suggestions, but if everyone is OK with the sentence as it is, I'd just like to move on to the remainder of the lead paragraph and lead section. Further, since there are no explanatory footnotes any more if everyone agrees with the current lead section, the Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80#Notes section has become empty and redundant and should be removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Rebooting: can we please move on to the remainder of the lead paragraph? For instance, the second sentence has a repeat link to Reformation Day, which has been moved to the lead sentence per the previous discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead 7 October

As it is difficult to check versios: here's the lead as of today, as a reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

First para

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"), BWV 80, is a chorale cantata for Reformation Day by Johann Sebastian Bach. He composed the church cantata in Leipzig for Reformation Day, 31 October. An early version (BWV 80b) of the work may have been written as early as 1723, and a later version with an extended chorale fantasia as the opening movement was possibly written in 1735. The cantata is based on Martin Luther's hymn "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott".

• It begins with a long German phrase, which may be uninviting to a general reader.
• It introduces chorale cantata before the more general church cantata, and chorale cantata is possibly hard to grasp for a reader who may not even know what a cantata is.
• It introduces Reformation Day before the composer, who thus comes very late, imho.
• It talks about the difficulty of dating before even saying that it has to do about Luther's hymn.

So: I don't agree with the first paragraph. I'd try, suggesting to leave the tricky dating topic for later in the lead:

Johann Sebastian Bach composed the church cantata Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (A secure castle is our God), BWV 80, in Leipzig for Reformation Day, 31 October. The chorale cantata is based on Martin Luther's hymn "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott". 31 October. Bach adapted an earlier cantata, Alles, was von Gott geboren, BWV 80a, composed in Weimar on a text by Salomon Franck, and developed at least two versions. The first of these, called BWV 80, is lost, and its dating is unclear. The final version, with an extended chorale fantasia as the opening movement, was possibly written in 1735, a year when Bach also composed oratorios.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Rejecting Gerda's proposal, per above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you suggest? I have my problems with the lead we have today, explained above. I didn't want to just to reject, so offered an alternative. And sure, the second para follows the first, but we can start thinking about it. Also, the article may grow by lead-worthy sections. - The second para today has no repeat link to Reformation Day, but Reformation, - a strange link, piping the true article name to a redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my month-old question ("Is everyone OK with the current version of the lead sentence?" – see above). Re. "What do you suggest?" – see above what I suggested in the case not everyone was OK with the current lead section. So I'll take my time for that (probably less than a month, but no time pressure please). In the mean while proposals for the continuation of the first paragraph (i.e. everything following the lead sentence) can be formulated here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence revisited

Starting my replies to Gerda's objections to the current version of the lead sentence

1. Re. "fortress is not a good translation of "Burg" (castle)" – Here's a castle that is not a Burg. The German "Schloss" and "Burg" largely overlap in meaning, but not every "Schloss" is a "Burg". Both "Schloss" and "Burg" can be translated by "castle" in English. So how does one translate "Burg" without including connotations of "Schloss"es that are not "Burg"s? "Fortress" seems an excellent rendering of "Burg" in this context. Let's also not forget that "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" refers to the opening words of Psalm 46. KJV, American Standard, Jewish Publication Society, World English and Book of Common Prayer all translate this sentence as "God is our refuge and strength" (Psalms 46:1; Psalms 46:1; Psalms 46:2; Psalms 46:1; Book of Common Prayer). No "castle"s: "refuge", the standard translation, is more compatible with "Burg" and "fortress" than with "Schloss", so indeed it seems better to get rid of the "Schloss" connotation included in "castle". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In German, Schloss and Burg don't overlap, but it's not the question here, because nobody suggested palace. A Burg is a building protecting people living in it, - a good image for the shelter experienced by the psalm singer (thank you for the bible sources!), while a fortress (German: Fort, we do have a word) is a military building, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

German "Schloss" can be translated as "castle": if "Schloss" and "Burg" have no overlapping meaning in German (which however seems a dubious contention, e.g. Neuschwanstein Castle has been named Burg and later Schloss), that makes the translation "castle" even worse, if the intent is to refer to only "Burg". Fortress is a "fortified building or town" (OED), so not more military than "Burg". The Loire château Beauregard, which I used as an example above, is neither a palace in English nor a Palast in German (nobody mentioned palace indeed, which is also not a common translation of Schloss). Beauregard is a castle in English, and a Schloss (not a Burg) in German.

Further, please stop all direct or indirect discussion of the first sentence until after the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, that was what I was intending to do after you said you were OK with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't intend to discuss the lead sentence, but only improve the understanding of German. Sure, many buildings starting as Burg (protecting) developed to Schloss (showing off status), look at Idstein Castle (which has now a Burg part and a Schloss part, both named individually in German) or Schloss Weimar, where the Burg part became part of the major structure. Too bad that we miss the church where Bach's cantatas premiered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I was concentrating on understanding of English, which seems more to the point here. Anyhow, a last remark: (English) fortress does not translate to (German) Fort. The word fort exists in English, and would be the normal translation of German Fort. Fortress rather translates as Festung in German. Both Festung and Burg are about "protection" and usually in a military sense (although that connotation may be a bit more prominent for Festung than for Burg). The meaning of Burg seems anyhow closer to that of Festung/fortress than to castle-with-a-Schloss-connotation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Second para

Today:

Bach reused for Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott a cantata in six movements on a text by Salomon Franck which he had composed in Weimar for Oculi, the third Sunday in Lent. He could not use this cantata for the same occasion in Leipzig because no cantatas were performed there during Lent, but it matched the anniversary of the Reformation well, as two movements already contained Luther's hymn. In Leipzig, with an additional opening movement and another inserted chorale setting, he presented the text of all four stanzas of the hymn unchanged.

I suggest to not present the details about the Weimar work's occasion in this lead. It can be in the body, and is in the linked article:

Two movements of the Weimar cantata, written for a Sunday in Lent, contained already two stanzas of Luther's hymn, providing a good base for celebrating the Reformation. In Leipzig, with an additional opening movement and another inserted chorale setting, Bach presented the text of all four stanzas of the hymn unchanged. Franck's text could be retained with minor changes.

Just a starting point. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd put changes to the second paragraph on hold, as long as the content of the first paragraph is so far from being decided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Reminder

Now that the lead sentence appears temporarily settled, can we resume work on the remainder of the lead section? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

History & words section

See also: Chorale cantata cycle § BWV 80

Some suggestions:

• I'm a bit missing the context of the Reformation Feast not being celebrated with cantatas throughout Protestant regions: this seems rather specific for Leipzig (and maybe a few other places), while, for instance, cantata cycles by Telemann, even his ideal ones, never seem to contain a Reformation Day cantata. Picander's libretto cycle, notwithstanding that it contains librettos for Leipzig's "tempus clausum" Sundays, does however not contain a libretto for a Reformation Day cantata. Graupner seems to have written a few, but far less than the number he wrote for any average Sunday.
• It is not clear from the current article text if (and if so how and when) the "Feste Burg" hymn became specifically associated with the Reformation Feast. The listed readings don't seem to give a clue about such connection (at least not one that is explained – "Feste Burg" is a psalm translation). Vopelius doesn't seem to list any specific hymns for Reformation Day (he lists "Feste Burg" as hymn for Trinity XXVII, [2])

Are there any sources that could fill in the background here?

Another suggestion is about the current 3rd paragraph of the section: throughout the whole paragraph it is about Wolff says so and so; according to Wolff this and that — If it is important to note for nearly every sentence that the information comes from Wolff, then there must be other scholars saying other things: why is nothing mentioned about these other scholars? E.g. the Bach Digital website thinks the 80b version no earlier than 1728, which is definitely different from Wolff's theories. Compare also Zedler 2011 not picking up on Wolff's 1991 speculations ([3]). If I remember correctly, the Zwang brothers list the cantata as first performed on 31 October 1724, which would also be incompatible with Wolff's views. Also Dürr(/Jones) should be checked on the topic of this cantata and its variants. So the whole paragraph appears rather one-sided: is it possible to write this paragraph a bit more balanced (i.e. all major sources with their approach)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Another suggestion regarding this section regards its second sentence. It is currently in the format

The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the [Bible book of 1st reading], "[topic summary of 1st reading]" ([chapter and verse of 1st reading linking to KJV translation]), and from the [Bible book of 2nd reading], [topic summary of 2nd reading] ([chapter and verse of 2nd reading linking to KJV translation]).^{[reference to Dürr(/Jones)]}

• I find the phrasing of this sentence contorted, and would suggest, at least, to split it in two sentences and/or to make it otherwise more readable.
• Why is the topic summary of the first reading in quote marks, and that of the second not?
• The "...instructing believers..." part of the second summary is not really covered by the Dürr(/Jones) source. Seems like an interpretive summary of a primary source (which is a no-no, see the WP:PRIMARY policy): the gospel text mentions "unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" – it seems quite idealistic to interpret it as if all of these people (basically everyone who lives on earth) would all be "believers" (of whatever kind).
• I suggest to link to a 21st-century Protestant or, maybe even more preferable, transcending-individual-branches-of-Christianity modern translation instead of KJV (which is Anglican, not Lutheran, and not inviting for 21st-century readers): a basic understanding of the biblical text by a broad readership should be preferred here.
• The Dürr(/Jones) footnote has a wrong page number: there are no readings mentioned on p. 709 in that book.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Responses, with thanks:

• If anybody has sources for why cantatas for the feast in Leipzig but not elsewhere, great. If it was important in Leipzig, the hypothesis that it was important already when Bach began office there in 1723 makes some sense.
• The importance of the hymn for the feast day should be expanded mainly in the hymn article, - sources wanted.
• Wolff supports the early writing of a first version (now BWV 80b), which Bach Digital has as 1st Leipzig version, without any date. It was surprising for me, so I added it. Other thoughts by other scholars welcome.
• The readings: I used now for both readings the exact summary from Dürr/Jones, page 707 (sorry about the wrong page number so far), thus no more "believers" mentioned. I don't see much need to split the sentence.
• I'd prefer the KJV as closer to Bach's time, - what do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

My two principal issues regarding the section remain:

1. The prose is terse;
2. Unbalanced towards remote ancillary topics, instead of giving an appropriate direct context of the cantata

IMHO, both of these issues are epitomised in the current second sentence:

The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, "An injunction to steadfastness against the Adversary" (2 Thessalonians 2:3–8), and from the Book of Revelation, "The everlasting Gospel: fear and honour God" (Revelation 14:6–8).

References

Neither "An injunction to steadfastness against the Adversary" nor "The everlasting Gospel: fear and honour God" seem to have any relation whatsoever to the "history" or the "words" of the cantata, while the basic context of what a Reformation Feast in Bach's Leipzig meant is missing (problem #2); The sentence is the opposite of fluent, compelling prose, now acerbated with two (identical) mid-sentence references: two separate sentences, each with the quote at the end, each followed by a reference for the whole sentence is not hard to implement, and would make it far more readable (problem #1). I'll add a {{Copy edit}} tag for this issue until someone wants to attend to it (no prejudice against inviting the group of copy-editors at Wikipedia). For clarity: it's not only the second sentence of this section that is still wanting on both counts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Prose: I asked WP:GOCE to take a look, and would be grateful if Nikkimaria could help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The copy edit requested from the WP:GOCE is complete. I edited the whole article to ensure that I was consistent in my use of serial commas and other style-based writing choices. I left some "clarify" templates in locations where there was inconsistency or ambiguity that I was unable to resolve. Feel free to ping me from here if you have any questions, and if I made any errors, do not hesitate to correct them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Further suggestions:

• the structure of the libretto (and thus also the structure of the cantata) is rather exceptional for a chorale cantata: it neither uses exclusively text from the chorale, nor does it paraphrase text of the chorale. Chorale cantatas usually have either of those characteristics. This unusual feature of the cantata follows from its composition history, and imho merits mentioning in the history & words section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• The feast of Reformation Day falls on 31 October: this fact is no longer mentioned in the lead section, but imho should be mentioned in the history & words section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• "The Weimar cantata on which the Leipzig versions were based contained two stanzas from Luther's hymn "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott"" (emphasis added) – Is that correct? I understood, from the available sources, that it contained only one stanza of that hymn. I'll add a {{cn}} (also: if reliable sources contradict one another on this point, significant variant views should be mentioned separately, referenced to respective sources, see WP:NPOV). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Imho the section should also at least mention that Bach modified Franck's text in a few places to make it fit the Reformation Day occasion (as opposed to the Oculi occasion for the BWV 80a version). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Publication

If I remember well this is the first Bach cantata published in the Bach Revival era. If I'm not erring the date can be found in Terry's introduction for his translation of Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art, and Work. That's something that merits mentioning in the lead section as far as I'm concerned. This fact not even being mentioned in the section on publication (which seems to suggest that BGA Vol. 18 was its first publication) should probably best be remedied ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

1821 (p. xvii), i.e. half a century before the BGA edition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add whatever you see missing, - this is a community project, I only kicked the peer effort off. I actually contributed rather little to this article that was there for a long time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Who are the main contributors to this article (from the reverts of the last 24H I conclude there may be at least two)? I've been told a few times that I tend to improve Bach's chorale cantata articles beyond recognition for the original main editors. Forgive me that I'd try to avoid a repeat of that accolade, and be more insistent on full talk page consensus (including by all of the main editors) first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't be afraid. There are articles that one editor (more or less) wrote from start to finish, so should be permitted to use their preferred style when several options exist (at least that is how I interpret many discussions when people improving an article claim the right to do so, Harry Lauder was the last). This article however, was always edited by many, - you can be one of them. Also: adding is different from reverting and changing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Finally found the time to take a closer look at the page's edit history. Seems more troubled than what I expected to find. Let's state, briefly, and based on countless ill-advised partial reverts by main editors, that I wouldn't take any lessons on who can revert on this page apart from from the original main editor. I appreciate your efforts to come to a sounder editing environment, for instance by launching this peer review. Wearing my peer reviewer hat I'd recommend more talk-page-consensus-before-editing for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This can maybe serve as an example of what I have in mind when talking about consensus preceding editing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Other suggestions regarding this section:

• Both Wolff (1991, p. 152) and Terry (1920, see link above) mention the positive critical reception of Bach's work after its 1821 publication. Both mention Johann Friedrich Rochlitz (Wolff even with an extended quote). I suggest to mention this in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Wolff has more details about the 19th-century reception of the work, at least some of which could be included in the Wikipedia article on the cantata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Recordings

• I suggest to follow the example of Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, and have discography in a separate article, which Thoughtfortheday did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd rather see an integrated reception history section, i.e. including publication history, comments about the work (which for this cantata started half a century earlier than for most of the other Bach cantatas), history of memorable public and/or recorded performances, notable arrangements (if any), etc. This doesn't say anything about a possible separate discography article, but neither does such a possible separate article say anything about the content of this article on the cantata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Integrated reception section

If we go for an integrated reception section (which seems accepted now?) I'd recommend to adopt the content of the current "Evaluation" subsection in a more chronological narrative. E.g. 19th century comments (Rochlitz, see above: first publication-related suggestions) should come before 20th-century evaluations (e.g. Wolff 1991), which should in turn come before 21st-century evaluations (e.g. Smith 2013). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Navbox "state" parameter

Is there any reason why this edit shouldn't be undone? I prefer both navboxes would be treated on equal footing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If you like. Personal note: I am away for the weekend, please go ahead with additions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... rich information of the footer ..." ([4]) – you do realise (I hope) that the information in the other navbox is richer? In view of the improvement of the editing climate we're aiming at (see above), I'd recommend to defer from questionable labels, such as "rich information" in this case, in edit summaries, and reserve such opinions for open discussion on the appropriate talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I was only comparing the footers and would like to see this openly: Compositions * Cantatas ; Church cantatas: Chorale cantatas * Early * Weimar * 1st cycle * 2nd cycle * 3rd cycle * Picander cycle * Late ; Secular cantatas. But fine, both are collapsed as you wished. Thank you for that footer, and for the articles behind it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Chorale cantatas * Early * Weimar * 1st cycle * 2nd cycle * 3rd cycle * Picander cycle * Late are all in the body of the other template, while they belong to the main topic of that template;
• Secular cantatas have a separate navbox, appearing together with the "by BWV number" box on secular cantata articles.
• In sum, I see little merit in the navbox "footer" argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Publication in lead?

The lead had a summary of publication from this edit which was described as a revert, but I can't find the paragraph in earlier versions. We could drop it or update it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The publication content can be updated & referenced in the body of the article (see #Publication above), after which the {{not verified in body}} tags can be removed from the lead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You have the sources, would you please do it? In the article or here, to be discussed first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I'd prefer to limit my number of edits to this article as long as wearing a peer reviewer hat. The rewrite to the lead section was instigated by yet another rewrite of the lead sentence, which we had come to agree upon, temporarily, and after much back and forth. I couldn't very well revert that lead sentence without showing that a lead section fitting to that lead sentence was possible. The context being that my repeated invitations (spreading over more than a month) to work on that remainder of the lead section had received no response thus far. It seems unlikely I'm going to be tempted into similar edits in the remainder of the article before the 500th birthday of the Reformation. Also, all sources to cover this content are available at a mouseclick (already used in the article, + the one I linked to above), so that shouldn't be a problem at all for adding the content with references to the body of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Did I understand the following right:

• You made an edit declared as a revert, so nothing I'd even look at when it comes up as one of the (limited) 1000 of the last 24 hours. However, you wrote new publishing summary in that edit, which thus went unnoticed.
• You tagged that summary as not relying on the body, instead of tagging the body sentences as contradicting sources.

Only today, when I finally found the time to look into it, could I see the history, but still don't understand why so complicated. Also, even with your reviewer's hat on, you could propose a wording right here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

See above #Publication, you'll find my proposal there, written more than a month ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and nobody was against it, so I'd think "everyone agrees". I don't want to add "your proposal" under my name, - I have been criticised for that before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not understand. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Source presentation

A small suggestion regarding the Wolff 1991 source: all citations that refer to this book in the article are to the same essay, i.e. the 12th chapter, about BWV 80, pp. 152–161. I'd use the "|chapter= ..." and page range parameters in the {{Cite book}} template that is used to present this source. Also, the link in that template could go to the first page of the chapter (152), not the third (154, as it is currently). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Music section

• There is no text between the "==Music==" and "===Structure and scoring===" section titles: is it possible to provide a short section intro under the "==Music==" section title? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• The last sentence of the second paragraph of the "===Structure and scoring===" section starts with "Note that...": such wording is discouraged per WP:EDITORIAL: can that sentence be rephrased? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Aria e chorale (2nd movement): wasn't the "chorale" part of this movement a Leipzig addition? If so, the table could be clearer on that point and/or could be mentioned in the subsection on that movement; "Already in the Weimar version the instrumental quotation of the tune of the same hymn used as the closing chorale provided a structural unity to the cantata" in that subsection seems questionable, and would need a source. It seems questionable to speak about an "instrumental quotation of [a] tune" regarding a version of which the music is lost. Will add a {{cn}}. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)