Wikipedia:Peer review/Johann Sebastian Bach/archive2

Johann Sebastian Bach edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Thanks, 14jbella (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I listed this for peer review because I am planning to submit it for good article review. I thought that it would probably be helpful to have it peer reviewed first, as I am not sure that I caught everything. Thanks for helping, 14jbella (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: It is good that someone is prepared to work on this article, which has languished somewhat while those of other, often lesser composers, have been the subject of devoted attention. I have not read the text in detail, but after a quickish survey I have a number of concerns:-

Since you began editing the article in mid-February, you have reduced the text by about 2,000 words. I wonder why you thought this necessary? I have not examined in detail what has been removed from where, but from a glance I would say that the section dealing with Bach's music (works, style etc) had been halved since you began editing.
With 4761 words, the article is way, way shorter than those of any of the major composers that have been developed into featured articles. Examples: Tchaikovsky 10871; Elgar 9899; Mahler 8861; Rimsky-Korsakov 7977. Even relatively minor figures (Delius, Smetana) have around 7500. I know wordcount isn't everything, but given Bach's status and the immense scope and range of his output, it is hard to believe that the article is a comprehensive account of the composer's life and works.
It is very hard to get an overview of the sources used in the article. There is a "Further reading" list which mixes cited and non-cited sources; these need to be separated. A bibliography of all the cited works, organised by author's surname, would be very helpful. Have you added any new sources during the course of your editing? Likewise, have you removed sources that were previously used?
The general organisation of the article looks odd with a Legacy section in the middle. The norm is for the composer's legacy to be discussed (not always under that title) after the consideration of his works, as a kind of tailpiece to the article – an evaluation of his/her lasting contribution to music.
In this respect, the Legacy section looks painfully thin, considering the immense influence of Bach on later music.
On relatively minor points, the referencing looks uneven; there are uncited assertions and, in particular, many paragraphs do not end with a citation. Some of the image choices look questionable, and their placement often results in the squeezing of text. Bullet-point format should not be used in the text.

I realise that this is not a full review, but these are all issues which I think you need to consider. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

If you were looking to take the article to FAC there would still be a long way to go, IMO. As your sights are set on GA that's probably more realistic, but even so I agree with the comment, above, about the length of the article. I have looked back to the text before you started working on it, and I think you have cut quite a lot of uncited material from the Works section that ought to have been followed up and given references or replaced, rather than just being cut: there was a lot of good stuff in the Musical Style sub-section, for instance, that you could follow up.

The prose will probably suffice for GA, but if you had plans to take the article to FAC it would need a thorough copy edit. I noticed some rather odd phrasing: "because of his skill in voice" (he sang well), "the trip was likely taken mostly on foot" (he probably walked most of the way), "who both became important composers as well" (as well as what?), "the teachings of Isaac Newton" (he did practically everything except teach), and so on.

Italics are used too often, and inconsistently. BWV numbers certainly don't need to be italicised, and if "Cello Suites" don't need italics (which they don't), why italicise "Six Suites for Unaccompanied Cello"? There are many similar examples.

There are too many references in the lead. If the lead and the main body of the text are properly constructed, all statements in the lead are backed up by referenced statements in the main text. See the Elgar, Delius or Grainger articles for examples. Occasionally a date may need a footnote, as in Tchaikovsky, but otherwise the lead is better with as few refs as possible. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#citations for guidance. As for content, the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is not something one would normally expect to find in a lead. The works mentioned in the lead should have blue links where available.

The text contains more images than it can comfortably accommodate. On my (newish, wide-ish) screen the text of the Leipzig section is sandwiched between images to left and to right. The same occurs in the Musical style section. The answer is probably not fewer images but more text. As a personal opinion, I don't think the sketch-map of JSB's residences adds anything useful.

The {{Cquote||}} formatting is reserved for pull-out quotes and should not be used as here. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Block quotations.

Sorry if this list of objections is discouraging. I enjoyed the article, and it has the potential to go further. Tim riley (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]