Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/GA2

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Johann Sebastian Bach/GA2|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|ErnestKrause}} 19:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 07:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• The article is supposed to be in British English (see the banner on the article talk page). On the whole it is – "calibre", "characterised", "favour", "honour", "kilometres", "popularise", "realised", "recognised", "secularised" and so on – but a few Americanisms have crept in: "centers", "favor", "fervor", "honor" (twice), "organization", "popularized", "program", "unfavorable/unfavorably". These need to be Anglicised, except where they are in quotations, where they should remain intact.

• C. P. E. Bach is mentioned four times as "C.P.E. Bach". Our manual of style (MOS:INITS) requires a space after each full stop. (He could do with a blue link at first mention, too.)

• The Dorian mode is not given its capital letter. As Grove, The Oxford English Dictionary and our own article on musical modes all capitalise the word, I think we should here.

More later after I've closely scrutinised the text. It's a big article and I shall probably need several goes, commenting and suggesting in batches. Tim riley talk 07:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Tim riley; This is such a thorough list which I'll need to go through in detail. The above three items should now be done. I'll try to get through your 'first batch' by tomorrow or the day after. Its a very useful list. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

All the present batch of comments (and I imagine the same will be true of most comments in further batches) are merely advisory, and whether or not you choose to act on them will not affect my decision about promotion to GA.

• Language templates: I am unsure – and the Manual of Style doesn't say, as far as I can find – whether German titles should or shouldn't have the {{lang|de... template. You use it 25 times but omit it elsewhere. For instance it is not used for "Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis", " An Wasserflüssen Babylon", "Clavier-Übung", "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", " Wer weiß, wie nahe mir mein Ende?" and many others. I'd play safe and use a template for every German title. I had to do this when taking Robert Schumann through FAC and a right old fag it was, but worth the effort.

::More tomorrow on this one. Nice effort for your Schumann improvements. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There were many of them though they now appear to be converted to 'de'. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "the Goldberg Variations and The Well-Tempered Clavier" – I notice that in your main text (and for that matter in the text of our article on the latter) the definite article in "The Well-Tempered Clavier" is sometimes capitalised and sometimes not. If it were up to me I'd capitalise it throughout, but as long as you are consistent it is up to you.

::Interesting to find that the definite article is used on both the German and English version for The Well-Tempered Clavier, but that both German and English Wikipedia do not use the definite article for the Goldberg Variations in the article titles. Going with "The Well-Tempered Clavier" consistently in article, while the Goldberg Variations do not consistently use capital letters. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The Well-Tempered Clavier, was appreciated by both students and accomplished artists" – I don't see anything in the main text to back this up.

::I've added the number of recordings of "Well-Tempered" up to 2013 in the Legacy section, and adapted the lede to it. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The 19th century saw the publication of some significant Bach biographies" – these are the wise words of Plain Words on "significant": {{green|This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'}}

::Changing wording to "several biographies". ErnestKrause (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "His father very likely taught him violin" – as we are in BrE I draw your attention to this advice from The Guardian's style guide: {{green| In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as “they will likely win the game” sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.}}

::'Very likely' is better; Bach as a youth was apparently known for his voice and his violin playing. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "shortly after graduating from St. Michael's" – I think you should rationalise your use, or non-use, of full stops after the "St" in saints' names. I counted fourteen without a full stop and twenty-one with one. I don't see the need for them, but it's your choice, as long as you are consistent.

::Going with St, no period, throughout text. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "ordered Bach to be more moderate about the musical qualities he expected from his students" – this is the first we've heard of his having students.

::Shorten narrative and go strait to example of his absence. Bach was lively in his discernment of talent and lack of talent in others. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "he had a cantata performed on Easter, 24 April 1707" – you can write "on Easter Day" or "at Easter", but "on Easter" tout court looks most peculiar.

::At Easter better. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "likely an early version" – as above

::Adapt wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The position included significantly higher remuneration" – as above

::Higher wages. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Bach convinced the church and town government" – in BrE one convinces that but persuades to.

::Persuaded is better. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "many of these transcribed works are still regularly performed" – two points here. First, it lacks a citation and secondly, I think you mean "frequently" rather than "regularly" (at fixed times or uniform intervals – you use "regular" properly in "music for regular Sunday services" later.)

::Shorten optional comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "each containing 24 preludes and fugues in every major and minor key" – ambiguous: if read one way this would mean there were 1,152 preludes and fugues, if my arithmetic is correct. It would be safer to say "containing 24 preludes and fugues, one in every major and minor key" or some such.

::Wording changed to pairings for each of the key changes. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Bach and Handel never met" – first we've heard of this Handel chap. I don't think you should assume that every one of your readers will know about him. Something on the lines of "Bach never met his celebrated musical contemporary George Frideric Handel", would be helpful, and at the very least a blue link is wanted.

::Your version better. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "who both, especially Johann Christian, became significant musicians" – what did they signify?

::'Well-known' might work better. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "in 1714, he attended the service at the St. Thomas Church on the first Sunday of Advent,[56] and in 1717 he had tested the organ … In 1716, Bach and Kuhnau met" – you have so far been admirably sparing with AmE-style commas after dates. Plain Words sums up the BrE model concisely: {{green|Some writers put a comma here as a matter of course. But others do it only if a comma is needed to emphasise a contrast or to prevent the reader from going off on the wrong scent ... On the principle that stops should not be used unless they are needed, this discrimination is to be commended"}}. If I were you I'd go through the text and remove commas in such phrases as "In 1725, Bach lost interest" ... " In 1733, Bach composed" ... "In 1735, Bach started" etc. Elsewhere your existing form – "In 1703 he returned" ... "In 1723 he was hired" ... "In 1726 he began" ... "In 1746 Bach was preparing" – is clear, correct and uncluttered.

::Going with uncluttered version. If you have more of these after the week-end then you can add them here, or directly to the article in case I've missed something. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all for this batch. Further comments will follow soon, I hope. – Tim riley talk 09:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Mostly advisory, but there are a few requests for or queries about citations that I think require attention.

• "The complete mass was not performed during his lifetime. It is considered among the greatest choral works in history." – I cannot open the citation for the Rathey article. Does it say sans phrase that the Mass is "considered among the greatest choral works in history"?

::Link repaired. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Both Antonio Vivaldi and Jean-Baptiste Lully have been noted as significant antecedents" – citation? (and another "significant" where you mean "important" or "major")

::Add cites for Vivaldi. Lully already cited at end of sentence. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "especially by Bach and George Frideric Handel" – a bit late for full name and blue link. Should appear at first mention.

::Handel was already linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The model for BWV 974 has been attributed to Vivaldi, Benedetto Marcello, and Alessandro Marcello. In the second half of the 20th century, the oboe concerto that was the model for Bach's transcription was attributed to Marcello again" – But which Marcello?

::Alessandro. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• I lost the will to live while plodding glumly through the minutiae of the rest of the Antecedents and influences section. But the GA criteria do not rule out such exhaustive detail. Whether it is "unnecessary detail" is a matter of opinion, and I am not here to impose mine. All the same, if the article is ever taken to FAC (and why not?) I'm sure reviewers will have an opinion on this point.

::At this point, I've left the link to the main article which contains that table at the top of that section. If the supporting paragraphs make the case in your eyes for Vivaldi as a source for Bach, then it should be fine. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Bach created an overall experience that has been found over the intervening centuries to be both musically thrilling and spiritually profound." – the cited source says no such thing.

::Overstate from previous editor in 2012. Abridge text. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "displaying a dizzying variety of structural, contrapuntal and fugal techniques." – I can't see this in the cited source, either.

::Overstate again from previous editor in 2013. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "his compositions are to a large extent considered to have laid down the rules for the evolving scheme that dominated musical expression in the next centuries" – no source cited for this assertion, which doesn't sit well with the neglect of his music you report in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

::Overstate from previous editor. Stick to the facts and examples given without embellishment. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "I have expended much effort to find another piece of this type by Bach. But it was in vain. This fantasy is unique and has always been second to none. – needs closing quotation marks

::Close quote. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Similarly, the virtuoso cello suites seem tailored to the instrument, the best of what is offered for it" – I can't make out what this sentence is trying to say.

::One of the cello suites transcribed for lute. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Bach exploited an instrument's capacities to the fullest while keeping the core of the music independent of the instrument on which it is performed" – citation?

::Shorten uncited text. Overstated. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Bach's canons, and especially his fugues, are the most characteristic of this style, which he did not invent but contributed to so fundamentally that to a large extent he defined it" – citation?

::Update wording of influence. Add cite. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The Forkel quotation runs to 331 words. The Manual of Style does not prescribe an arbitrary limit on the length of quotations, but this one strikes me as excessive. Again, a matter of opinion and I do not press the point.

::Quote reduced in size; redone as single paragraph quote format now. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Bach devoted more attention than his contemporaries to his compositions' structure." – citation? And the phrasing is rather awkward: "devoted more attention than his contemporaries to the structure of his compositions" would flow more smoothly.

::Going with your version. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "His collaboration with Picander for the St Matthew Passion libretto is best known, but there was a similar process in achieving a multi-layered structure for his St John Passion libretto a few years earlier" – no such mention of Picander or the St Matthew Passion in the cited source.

::Picander cite added. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "staged some of his works" – staged? I see no mention that Bach wrote anything for the stage.

::Presented is a better word choice. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Brahms, Bruckner, and Wagner were among the composers who promoted Bach's music or wrote glowingly about it." – citation?

::Overstate from previous editor. Archive. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "During the 19th century, 200 books were published on Bach. By the end of the century, local Bach societies were established in several cities, and his music had been performed in all major musical centers" – Are all three statements backed by the source? I cannot open the McKay article.

::McKay link repaired. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "he was inscribed in a religious revival" – strange verb: what do you mean by it here?

::Archive odd wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Leading performers of classical music such as Willem Mengelberg, Edwin Fischer, Georges Enescu, Herbert von Karajan, Helmut Walcha, Wanda Landowska, I Musici, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Yo-Yo Ma, and Philippe Herreweghe recorded his music." – I think your footnote 3 is lazy and shows too little respect for your readers. If you are citing something you should link to it if online and give page number and bibliographic details if printed.

::Enthusiastic name-dropping by previous editor. No cites means it is archived now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "one of the most well known piano recordings" – strange phrasing: do you mean best-known?

::Shorten text. Astonishing sales being stated is enough there. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "an extraordinarily demanding transcription of the Chaconne" – who says it is extraordinarily demanding?

::Shorten previous editor's text. Its a transcription. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Several 20th-century composers referred to Bach or his music, for example Eugène Ysaÿe in Six Sonatas for solo violin, Dmitri Shostakovich in 24 Preludes and Fugues, and Heitor Villa-Lobos in Bachianas Brasileiras." – citation?

::Cites added. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Footnote 4 is inadequate: you must give page numbers to comply with WP:V – you can't expect your readers to plough through whole books.

::That looks like a list of biographer's books about Bach; its not meant as a page reference as presented by a previous editor. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• "In 2011, Anthony Tommasini, chief classical music critic of The New York Times, ranked Bach the greatest composer of all time" – the article has degenerated into a quote farm here, with a 192-word block quote immediately followed by a 158-word quote which, if it is to remain, should be another block quote: see MOS:BQ

::Both of those quotes in that section have been reduced and I've redone the paragraph breaks. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The references are good, on the whole (you might be surprised how badly some GAN articles are referenced, and this one is a pleasant find). I haven't done a systematic check of the whole lot, but opened (or have been unable to open) a random 10% of them.

• I can't work out why you sometimes refer to the printed Grove and sometimes to the online version, but that is of no great consequence.
• :Previous editors in the plural. Its seems the result of a decade of editing by different editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• I don't know what the mysterious "‹See TfM›Mar" means in either of its appearances.
• :{{u|Redrose64}}: GAN in progress and this mysterious "See TfM" comes up as an old template now deleted with your name on the linked page. Two cites use it in this Bach article. Any clues? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::TfM is short for WP:TFM, which is to say, Templates for Merging, and it denotes that the template that is used for that reference - specifically, Template:Wikicite - has been listed for merging with another template. ‹See TfM› is a link, and if you follow that link, it takes you directly to that discussion. Yes, I'm mentioned there - but only because I posted a comment. I don't see why you're calling me out and not {{user|Rjjiii}}, who filed the TfM. I also don't see why you chose me instead of Michael Aurel, SMcCandlish, Michael Bednarek, Izno and Bernanke's Crossbow, all of whom, like myself, posted there. I'm no more significant than any of those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::: Thanks for the ping. {{u|ErnestKrause}}, I think that {{u|Redrose64}} has already offered a solid explanation, but will give some specific input on the template. Try clicking the link in short footnotes for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=1292842350#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWolff2013345-57 Wolf 2013] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=1292842350#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMarshall_and_Leaver2001-133 Marshall and Leaver 2001]. The template {{tl|wikicite}} is creating the anchors in the full citations for the those links in the short citations. There is another template that does the same thing. While the merge discussion is ongoing, transclusions of either template will have a "See TfM" link. As soon as the merge discussion ends, that link will go away. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Seems odd to give Michael Talbot his authorlink at second rather than first appearance in the lists, and to give so many duplicate authorlinks for Christoph Wolff.
• :Fix Talbot to correct link formats. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• It is no longer regarded as a mortal sin to have duplicate blue links, but you could advantageously weed out a few here, to save your readers from being hit in the eye with excessive amounts of blue: in my view we could do without the duplicate links to Abraham Mendelssohn, assorted members of the Bach family, Augustus III of Poland, Berlin Sing-Akademie, cantata, Christoph Wolff, Frederick the Great, Glenn Gould., Halle, Handel, harpsichord, Johann Nikolaus Forkel, Kerll, Latin, Lorenz Christoph Mizler, Louis Marchand, Lully, Lutheran chorale, Maria Barbara Bach, Palestrina, Pergolesi, Picander, St John Passion, St Matthew Passion, The Well-Tempered Clavier, Vivaldi and Peter Williams.

::For example, 'Cantata' appears 47 times and I've trimmed some of them. Some of them are a little tricky and link to particular cantatas or to other articles such as "Bach cantatas" rather than the general form. Trimmed some of the others as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. Over to you. There's quite a bit to attend to, and so I'll put the review on hold for a week. Tim riley talk 12:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Really a good list to go through {{u|Tim riley}}. Let me know if I can add more edits by listing them here for me. Or, if you prefer to add some you feel are appropriate then it should all be fine. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Good. I think we're there. If we were at FAC there's quite a lot I'd be quibbling about, but as far as I can see the article meets all the GA criteria, and I am very pleased indeed to be able to promote it. Bravo! (or whatever that is in German).

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{#if:|

---

|}}

1. Is it reasonably well written?
2. :A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|y}}
3. :: {{#if:||}}
4. :B. MoS compliance: {{GAList/check|y}}
5. :: {{#if:||}}
6. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
7. :A. References to sources: {{GAList/check|y}}
8. :: {{#if:||Well referenced}}
9. :B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|y}}
10. :: {{#if:||Well referenced}}
11. :C. No original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
12. :: {{#if:||}}
13. Is it broad in its coverage?
14. :A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|y}}
15. :: {{#if:||}}
16. :B. Focused: {{GAList/check|y}}
17. :: {{#if:||}}
18. Is it neutral?
19. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
20. :: {{#if:||}}
21. Is it stable?
22. : No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|y}}
23. :: {{#if:||}}
24. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
25. :A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{GAList/check|y}}
26. :: {{#if:||Well illustrated}}
27. :B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
28. :: {{#if:||Well illustrated}}
29. Overall:
30. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
31. :: {{#if:||}}

I found this an interesting and instructive article to review. It seems to me to have the potential for Featured Article Candidate (perhaps after a Peer Review) but for now, as GAN reviewer I have considerable pleasure in affirming its GA status. – Tim riley talk 12:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)