Talk:Psalm 84/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I will review this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that i have no knowledge on this subject, though i think it is interesting.

Overview

I have assessed the article at B now.

1. Prose:

• The article produces a high score on Earwig, but that's because of the bible quotes, so this doesn't form a problem.
• The article is interesting and well-organized. The section on uses is very concise and therefore a bit dry and cryptic.

  I found most of the section on uses when I expanded. Not an expert myself, I just kept it. --GA

• Please expand on it. It's a bit too "bullet point"-like for GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

2. MOS: There's a citation number in the lead which is not required. Secondly, the external links don't have descriptions.

External links: what do you miss? They have author when known, title, link, and website. ----GA

I was referring to the External links section. Per MOS:LAYOUTEL, external links should be "... each accompanied by a short description."--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Always learning. I confess to have never looked at the section, and all my FAs and GAs did without explanation. Compare Der 100. Psalm. We have templates for them that come without, such as {{IMSLP}}, {{AllMusic}}, {{discogs artist}}. Could you give one example as what you would expect? ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, just a sort note. For example, [1] could say "Notes for bible study", etc. Didn't think it was such a huge deal.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"bible study" is an ambiguous term, biblestudytools.com is a website. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I added some descriptions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

3. References layout: Some references don't have years of publishing. You need to expand on the reference "The Complete Artscroll Siddur" to make it identifiable. Also, add a few details to the "Ordo dedicationis ecclesiae" reference.

The references are for things not (yet) mentioned in the body. The two refs also belong to old material. --GA

So the section on Judaism is not part of the body of the article? And how is a reader supposed to find an "artscroll siddur" in a library or online, if no other information is provided? Please add a few details.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What's not in the body is that it is the third section of the Hebrew Bible because it's not specific to this psalm. We can of course drop that bit, and leave it to the linked article. Yoninah, could you help here and with expanding Jewish use? --GA

Your reply confused me. The citation in the lead is no problem. But just mentioning the name of an ancient text without any link or ISBN is. Aren't there translations of the Artscroll or Ordo out there?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't know a thing about the artscroll siddur source. I found a different ref for verse 5, but not verse 13 which is not mentioned in the linked articles. (V'hu Rachum is a redirect but then isn't mentioned where it redirects to, nor is psalm 84 mentioned there.) I asked Yoninah for help, will go to project Judaism next. ----GA

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The Complete Artscroll Siddur can be found on Google Books. Though you can't search in it, it will suffice for the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Better sources now for use in Judaism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that--great!.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

4. Reliable sources: Okay.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: see below.

7. Focus: The article stays focused.

8. Neutral: The article is neutral.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Could you expand on the copyright tags at File:Wilhelm_Kempff_-_Psalm_84_-_Cover.png and File:Psalm 84 CH Parry Trinity Church Boston.ogg? Thanks.

Not sure what you mean here. The sound file is used in several articles. The other is old enough to be out of copyright, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I was asking about the sound file, because i couldn't find the evidence that the file was released under a cc license, or that the uploader had the rights.

I don't know anything about it, - should we drop it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we can ask the uploader?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Cnbrb. - Thank you! ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gerda Arendt, the sound file File:Psalm 84 CH Parry Trinity Church Boston.ogg is extracted from a video that was released under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0). If you check the source cited in Commons, you will see a video on Vimeo. The licensing is not immediately obvious due to Vimeo's poor interface design, but if you click the "More" link just below the title, it brings up licensing information, and this confirms it is licensed under Creative Commons. Cnbrb (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a shame it's not more obvious on Vimeo, but the Commons file is totally legit! Cnbrb (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cnbrb! I had looked at the Vimeo link, but overlooked the license. Sorry about that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, perfectly reasonable to question it. I updated the wording in the source to make it clearer in case it comes up again. Cnbrb (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

April

I will continue with a detailed review later. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for your response first, so i know whether you're available.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I just returned from singing and lunch with company, have several postponed things to do, will reply late today or tomorrow. Thank you for the review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Broad coverage

A number of scholarly works discuss the psalm, that are not used in the article:

• The Narrative Effect of Psalms 84–89
• Appearing in Zion : the role of Zion in Psalm 84 : from a linguistic point of view

• "Seeing God" in the Psalms: The Background to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Bible

• The Near Eastern Background of Solar Language for Yahweh
• The Poetic Structure of Psalm 42-43
• Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b
• How lovely is your dwelling place: The desire for God’s house in Psalm 84

Only the last one cannot be accessed online. Although coverage of the subject does not need to be comprehensive for GA, but just "broad", the article currently does not have many scholarly references and contains many primary sources. I think that for GA you should include more scholarly analysis.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I will try but will need a bit more time. My problem with these sources (I have a few parked in my sandbox which may even overlap) is that I am not the one to say if an author rides his hobby horse or if a view is widely accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if i understand you correctly, but generally, this can be checked in citation indices such as Google Scholar. For articles that i write about Buddhism, i usually consider any English-language source with less than 15 citations in other works as not reflecting mainstream scholarship. These numbers will be different for different disciplines, of course. Furthermore, since this article has a very specific subject, you might choose to use any scholarly work which has more than five cites or so, but that's up to you.

If in doubt, you might use recent tertiary sources like encyclopedias articles and study books from universities and secondary schools to determine what opinions are most widely recognized in mainstream scholarship.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that on the talk page of the article some editor also suggested a list of possible sources for expanding the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Specifics

To be a bit more specific about topics which are not covered much in the article yet, I found these topics in multiple sources:

• solar language[2][3]
• animal motifs[4][5]
• doctrinal analysis of key words[6][7]
• use of second and third person[8]
• connection with psalm 42-43[9]

Some more piece of information, found in less sources:

• analysis of (Hebrew) language[10]

• connection with festival[11]

• dating[12]
• connection with Jewish suffering[13]
• relation with Psalter, Old Testament, Davidic psalms[14]
• prayer for a king[15]

Sources I am citing here are those mentioned above and on the talk page. As stated, you do not need to cover all of this, but you should cover some.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I hear you, and looked at all of them as far as accessible, but am very busy today, need to nominate two articles for DYK, - or it's too late. Solar language is a good topic for FA, I'd think ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just trying to be helpful. And yes, the world needs more solar language.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. One article nominated, was long enough but missing references, now the other, too short. Die güldne Sonne. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also done - tired ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, much can be added to it still, and I would have preferred more secondary sources in the last section, but I think the article is nearly broad enough for GA, except for one thing. What I would like to ask you is to approximately date the psalm. You have mentioned that it is dated before or after the exile in Babylon, but can you add some estimated period to that?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed that the dating of the psalm is uncertain, in that it is either pre- or post-excilic, according to Dunn et al.[16] But my concern is that many readers will just know the Exodus from Old Testament-based preaching, and will not be able to tell when this happened historically. There should be a statement to the effect that the Exodus probably occurred between this and that century... A rough indication.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Done it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Review per section

I am making minor corrections myself as i go along. Revert if i make mistakes.

• ... in the King James Version: add of the Bible.

Okay, I may have exaggerated in expecting you to explain King James Version here. Still, my other requests to explain technical terms are still reasonable. I have seen that some of the sources I found on the topic also define things like Lord of Hosts briefly, so I don't see the problem about that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• shouldn't the King James version section have some reference?

It's in Wikisource, which is in External links. --GA

I don't often use Wikisource. If possible, send me a link with policy on that sometimes.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I go more by examples than by policy, sorry. Please take a look at Church cantata, where every occasion comes with two (or more) readings, and all these readings are from Wikisource. It's also used for historic biographies from ABD, for example this for Paul Speratus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but my question shouldn't the King James version section have some reference? is still very reasonable.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I added it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... It psalm with a praise of the place where God lives,... Is this a typo? Not sure what you mean.

yes, typo, fixed, I hope --GA

• ... the Lord of Hosts: i see that this is wikilinked and that's good, but since it's important for the narrative, you should also define this briefly inline.

I would not know what of the lengthy passage with many links and "citation required" I would get in. For many readers, it will be a common term anyway, part of the Sanctus which is part of every mass. --GA

• ... with a protective shield ...: does this still refer to the sun, or is this a separate, second metaphor?

Second metaphor, tried to clarify. --GA

• The psalm could have been written before...: suggest moving to the next paragraph, where this statement is explained.

Will think about it after adding from the scholarly sources. --GA

• ... written from the exile ...: you mean, during the exile? Please explain this part a bit more, for the non-Christian readers. E.g., what temple was destroyed?

Probably my English, exile (in German) meaning the place even more than a time. Will look what to take from the linked article. --GA

• In Christian thinking, ...: too general, please specify period or denomination.

It's generally Christian vs. Jewish, how would I say that? --GA

I see what you mean now. Perhaps you could write "Eternal life after death" but you're probably going to reply that that is redundant from a Christian's point of view.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• The book about the psalms published ...: please include editor's name in the text, or the person who wrote these things.

author's name and year added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Hebrew (Hebrew: עֵמֶק הַבָּכָא‎) (verse 6) has been translated as vale of tears and as valley of Baca. ...: unreferenced.

wording changed, - no talk about frequency, some have translations have this, some that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

::: Just cite a translation for both ... vale of tears and as valley of Baca ...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

the refs from the two translations in the article duplicated --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... 500 years Reformation in Munich.: festival of 500 years...?

reluctant, because I understand Festival as something connected to a place, but the memory of the Reformation was around the globe, - Munich was a little part of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There was no recent reformation in Munich, there was an event that commemorated the reformation. You need a word for that: maybe commemoration, celebration, theme, etc.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

commemoration, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... as by Jürgen Seidl ...: unless this was a highly publicized sermon, it looks like undue. Better cut it out.

It's one example of many possible. How do you suggest to source that it's a typical topic for sermons at such events?

You'd use an example mentioned in secondary literature. But never mind this for now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• You're mentioning many musical works that refer to the subject, but there is no connecting narrative that analyzes these patterns. Try to use more secondary sources to describe how the psalm became so popular, or at least, how this popularity took shape.

How would I do that without OR? The centre of the Brahms Requiem is about as prominent as it can get. --GA

Well, using secondary sources that describe these developments.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Katherine Kennicott Davis ...: unreferenced.

Will look, should be in her article. --GA

done now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Isaiasz' book has no ISBN.

fixed --GA

That's all for now. I hope I'm not overwhelming you. I should add that the article has already improved much.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Not overwhelming, but out for most of today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Putting the article on hold for the time being, to give you time to fix things. At this point, the main issue is adding scholarly secondary sources. Secondly, the article's prose needs to be a bit more understandable to outsiders. Let's keep the conversation on this open.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope to get to a rewrite of the basics and dating tomorrow. DYK is Thursday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I am passing the article for GA now. Ideally, the article should contain more secondary sources and less primary. I think it meets the standards for GA now, though, but it needs expansion for FA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

GA progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.