Talk:Schwingt freudig euch empor, BWV 36/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 12:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The oboe picture states "Transferred from en.wikipedia" as a source. Does not make sense actually. If it is the work of the uploader then that should be noted in the table.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

• I think "uplift" is not the correct word (I only know it as an economical or geological term, but never heard it in music). Perhaps "upswing" or "rise". I made some minor changes. --Tomcat (7) 21:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC).

"Uplifting" is used in connection with music, but I tried to clarify without using it, as it seems not clear enough. It would be one of many ways to translate the title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)