Talk:Mein Herze schwimmt im Blut, BWV 199

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mein Herze schwimmt im Blut, BWV 199/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article and be back with comments. Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I would like to see a few copyedits
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Can you expand the lead just a bit and address the "cn" tags I'm going to pop in?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Requires just a couple more sources and a small expansion
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Nice little article. There is probably not a lot more narrative content to add, but I'd like to see just a bit of expansion in the following areas:

1. Would "history and words" be more appropriately titled "History and lyrics"?

"History and text" has been tried. 3 FAs, several GAs and 100+ normal articles have "words", as it's often biblical, and I don't feel that's "lyrics". --GA

1. Can that section be expanded? Perhaps the sources in the lead could be added to the main body text and the lead footnotes removed once that occurs.

Sources in the lead are needed for quotations. --GA

I found one not added by me and removed it. The same thing is in the body. Don't quite know how to expand the lead. For FA I would ;) --GA

1. I popped in a couple "cn" tags

Will look in a few minutes. --GA

1. I added some hidden comments to indicate my concerns, toss when read. If not simple fixes you can easily make, then toss the hidden text anyway but let me know what the situation is here.

Tried but confess that some questions were not clear to me, - please check, I left all which I didn't incorporate, please remove when clear.

1. I added some wikilinks and minor copyedits, toss what doesn't work for you.

All fine.

This article is close to GA, basically just needs a bit of copyediting for clarity and some minor expansion. Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for looking and offering alternatives, some taken, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Y Your changes look sufficient to pass GA, most of the rest are just my personal preferences. Nice work! Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)