Talk:Unionskirche, Idstein

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unionskirche, Idstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

preliminary review

• There's a dead link (marked).
• Is this article about the church? From the image, it doesn't look like a Baroque church, and there's almost no description in the article about the church's architectural elements. I think the article goes a little off topic by describing more about the church's paintings etc., but nothing about the church's architect, who built it, etc. The "History" is more about detailing the paintings, but little about the church and it's history. Is this article part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, as the talk page indicates?
• Perhaps the article should be retitled? Maybe (I'm not good about coming up with article titles) "Paintings in the Unionskirche, Idstein"?

• Don't know. What do you think?

It's supposed to cover the church, its history (friars, witch hunt, church union), its (most notable) interior decoration, its music (organ 100 years, choir 40 years in 2012), - don't know how to "classify". Who says Baroque church? Gothic, even earlier beginnings, we don't know the architects, and almost don't see there work, because Baroque changed it. Will look closer tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

reply

• from the lede: "its interior was changed in the 17th century and is a unique Baroque monument, including 38 paintings of the Dutch Golden Age school of Rubens". Now granted, I'm more used to actual architectural articles, and especially about Baroque architecture, or Gothic architecture, if you say it's Gothic. Or Romanesque architecture. (See these general articles for reference.) Most church articles I've seen are mostly concerned with the architecture. e.g. Santa Maria in Cosmedin, Speyer Cathedral, Reims Cathedral, Santa Maria in Cosmedin. Perhaps ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I think the German version says Baroque.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link. - I wonder if it should go under "Miscellaneous" rather than "Architecture", it really isn't "the" typical church article. The presentation of the paintings (on canvas, not on the walls) is unique at least in Germany, as far as I know, I will try to get that sourced. We don't see any of the earlier interior. I will try to expand organ and choir, for the anniversaries, being concerned more with people rather than the building ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

reply

• I notice that you asked an expert for his advice on your talk page who seems to agree with most of my conclusions:[2][3] His answer has some good suggestions, which I agree with. Your answer there indicates that you are doing some thinking about the content of the article.[4] Meanwhile, I'll place it on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I added and restructured. Please help me to include the following evaluation, from the official "monument" source: "Die Unionskirche zeigt die Neueinrichtung eines evangelischen Kirchenraumes nach Gestaltungsprinzipien, wie sie in der Hofkirche zu Torgau 1544 entwickelt wurden. Die Ausstattung mit Gemälden wird zum Bestandteil der Architektur, gleichzeitig ist sie ein seltenes, spätes Beispiel evangelischer Laiendogmatik in gemalter Form. Erste und bedeutende eigenständige kirchliche Bauschöpfung in Nassau nach dem 30jährigen Krieg.", roughly translating to: The Unionskirche shows the creation of a Protestant "church room" (describes it well but is probably not the right term) following principles from the 1544 Hofkirche zu Torgau (unfortunately a red link even in German, Luther praised it). The use of pictures becomes part of the architecture, at the same time it is a rare and late example of protestant "Laiendogmatik" (dogmatic by laymen?) in painted form. First and notable "eigenständige" (? without an example?) creation of a church building in Nassau after the 30 years war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

reply

• I think you need to decide on what you want this article to focus on. I don't think you can cover the paintings in detail, include extensive coverage of music from 1972 through the 2000s etc. (concerts and who performed them, etc), along with religious history Persecution of witches, along with the actual church - it's architectural history. If you cover what's in the lede, then you have way too many images of paintings. Yes, the paintings become part of the church's architecture, but not at the expense of actual Architectural style. See Glossary of architecture. Consider narrowing the focus of the article and changing the title. Or less take a crash course in architecture - its not that hard as many wikipedia articles have excellent architectural coverage. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• p.s. The google translation of the German above is: "The Union Church presents the refurbishment of evangelical church interior design principles, as developed in the court chapel at Torgau 1544. The availability of paintings becomes a part of the architecture; it is a rare example of late Protestant lay dogma in painted form. The first and major independent Bauschöpfung Church in Nassau after the 30 year war. (My German is poor.) MathewTownsend (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

it helps, some is fine, "lay dogma", but some is wrong, hard to sift, "evangelical" is NOT "evangelisch", Protestant is (tell Wikipedia also, I tried and gave up). - "Availability" is not "Ausstattung", but perhaps "refurbishing" is? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• p.s. I'm not under standing your use of this citation:Martin-Luther-Straße 1 Seems to have lots of architectural details, but you use it to cite Rubens The Wedding at Cana and a quote "Johannes auf Patmos sieht den Himmel offen und die Engel mit dem Evangelium" which I don't find there.

my mistake, thanks for pointing it out, Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "on the south wall largely based on Rubens's painting The Feast of Herod which hangs today in the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh.[3]" example of off-topic detail.

do you mean where it hangs? - that the design is based on a Rubens design seems not off-topic Gerda Arendt (talk)

• I urge you to consult other wikipedia church experts to decide what the focus of this article should be. Right now, it's all over the place. I'm giving some example of good articles on churches so you can see the format and content of "church" articles is relatively focused. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I will look tomorrow, Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Here are some good articles on churches to give you an idea of the format and content of a church article: All Saints Church, Patcham, Capel Lligwy, Church of Christ Pantocrator, Nesebar, St Edwen's Church, Llanedwen, St Peirio's Church, Rhosbeirio, Towson United Methodist Church (more modern church).
• Good articles on a group of art works: Olive Trees (Van Gogh series), Sistine Chapel ceiling, William Blake's illustrations of On the Morning of Christ's Nativity, Langlois Bridge at Arles (Van Gogh series)
• Hopes this helps. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, thanks for supplying these examples, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

reply

yes, I noticed that you got more advice on your talk page[5]. You don't seem to be following this advice (which is exactly the same as mine). I feel that there is too much work to do on this article, more than can be done in just a few days. Also, you don't see clear what the article is about. It seems to me, both from what User:Peter I. Vardy said and what I said, that if you title the article by the name of the church, it's about the building. His formula for a "church" article is the same as mine (see the examples he gave, as well as the ones I gave you.) Also, my German is stressed out. But the German article seems to me to be more on the right track than this one. If you really want to write about the painting and the concerts etc. you should write an article about them with an appropriate title, such as "Paintings of the Unionskirche, Idstein". Again, entitling it with the name of the church implies that the article is about the building. I will give some examples of the problems below. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   Prose is muddled and needs copy editing (examples only)

   in the short lede "monument is mentioned in two different places

   under "Protestant church": "Whereas the basilica nave was kept more or less as it was, it was expanded to the west, the walls were heightened resulting in flatter roofs."

   under "Fittings and furniture": "Franz Matthias Hiernle erected an epitaph for Georg August Samuel von Nassau-Idstein (1665–1721), his wife Henriette Dorothea and their children, after a design by Maximilian von Welsch, which was placed left of the altar.

   under "Fittings and furniture": "The "Chorgitter", separating the elevated altar area, was made by Johann Urban Zais."

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The nominator asked for and received from me and another editor many examples of GA church articles to demonstrate how to organize a "church" article, but has disregarded the advice.

   Example only:

   Most of the lede is not contained in the article and visa versa

   The article is disorganized: Under "History" there are six sections including "Protestant church" which seems to include a discussion of architecture

   There is no "Architecture" section

   The history section doesn't seem to be ordered chronologically

   "Paintings" section shouldn't be under history - usually a "Features" section or something similar, or under the "Fittings and furniture"

   "Fitting and furniture" section contains: "Johann, infamous for his Persecution of witches (Hexenverfolgung) as late as 1676,[5] died shortly before the reconstruction of the church was completed."

   The article has two main sections: History, Music. Church articles typically have: History, Architecture, Features, Present day. Most prominent and given the most weight should be History and Architecture

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   examples of unsourced material given below

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: (direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guideline

   Unsourced statements: (examples only)

   "The Unionskirche is a monument marked according to the Hague Convention."

   The whole "Present day" section is unsourced.

   "The organ, built in 1783 by Stumm, was replaced in 1912 by an instrument of Walcker, but retaining the historic case (Prospekt)." uncited

   Almost all is sourced to German translations, mostly [6], Someone very familiar with German needs to check these.

   c. no original research:

   This use of paintings as an architectural feature is unusual for a Protestant church. - this may be or as there is no source and seems based on the editors assumptions

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Doesn't sufficiently cover history or architecture

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Many examples of irrelevant detail

   Too much detailed coverage of "Music" considering the topic is the church. This section alone is about the size of the whole rest of the article.

   "for example The Wedding at Cana[2] on the south wall largely based on Rubens's painting The Feast of Herod which hangs today in the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh."

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

   too much emphasis on material not directly related to the church.

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Fail

Please decide whether this article is about the church, or about the paintings, or mostly focused on present day music, or what. Requires too much work to be completed in the time given for hold. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. As I was out most of today I had no time yet to look at the examples you gave me, but I looked at the ones Peter I. Vardy supplied. - The common bias that Protestantism is against paintings in churches, - I might find a source for it, but don't find it necessary. - The present day section is taken from the church's website, how would I formally source that? - For me, a church is the building AND its history AND the life in it. - I am happy that the article was improved in the process, thanks again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As Peter said to you on your talk page, it's not what you think. The article is for the general reader and also should follow wikipedia conventions for "churches". I think Peter laid out quite clearly what was needed. And everything should be well sourced. The church's website is considered a reliable source for it's own schedule etc., the type of stuff Peter thought you should include. (I'm unaware of any "common biases" one way or another, but remember to find reliable sources for any such statements. The article is not the place to assume there are "common biases".) Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

s. Beeldenstorm ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Improve the article

I would like to see the article grow further and hope for help in collaboration on a wishlist that will also grow:

• The striking situation that this Protestant church is dominated by its paintings, whereas the Reformation was against images, should be expanded and sourced, s. Beeldenstorm. The Reformation was against images of Saints, the ones in Unionskirche are on Biblical topics.
• I would like to see more precise English terms for the precise German terms in the first reference, the official listing of the State of Hesse for Historic Monuments (Denkmal). I confess that I don't understand some of them even in German.
• The organ should be described and evaluated, not just be "100 years old".
• Find a source for the monument marking, found on de without a source.

Looking forward, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unionskirche, Idstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725200853/http://www.rheingau-taunus.de/sehenswuerdigkeiten/idstein.asp to http://www.rheingau-taunus.de/sehenswuerdigkeiten/idstein.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unionskirche, Idstein/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I will review this shortly. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

0) Earwig's clear. A few days back it showed a red flag, but the other site had copied from Facebook which in turn had copied from Wikipedia with attribution. All fine here.

Misc

1) "a major town in the German Rheingau-Taunus District". "major" should be removed. What makes it major?

I will renove it, but it's major by inhabitants, highway exit, railway station, higher education. --GA

2) Almost all church GAs have location map. Should be included here as well, I think.

The first one I looked at didn't even have an infobox. I copied from the next I found. Hesse was the smallest unit, and I wonder if it really helps. The only thing worth seeing would be the location in the town, - the rest is better in the town's article, no? --GA

Yes, Hesse map is unaesthetic ;) Germany map would look better. But its up to you. This is only a suggestion.

The German map is in the town, I think that should suffice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

3) Similarly, most church GAs have an "Architecture" section. Any reason you haven't one here?

That was the main concern of the first reviewer. The problem here is that there was Gothic architcture, which is almost complete lost interior, - disguised by the Baroque furnishings which would be hard to describe as architecture, and very simple exterior. --GA

Okay. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

4) "Remnants in the tower prove that a Romanesque church existed before 1287 at the same location. The oldest part of today's church is the 13th century base of the north tower bordering on the choir."

4.1) Does this "oldest part of today's church" refer to "Remnants in the tower" in the previous sentence?

4.2) If yes, then you have "tower" in the first sentence and "north tower" in the second.

4.3) If no, then what kind of remnants?

4.4) How many towers does it have? See point 3 please.

It has only one tower. Perhaps "tower in the north" might be better, - English is not my native tongue, and something may have become confused in translating. (It's a section that I only translated, not wrote from scratch.) --GA

Issue 4.1 is still not clear.

I tried to say more clearly what I understand: remnants were found in the tower. Some form the base of he present tower, but there may be more, xcavated but not serving a function today. - Can you word that better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"church existed before 1287 at the same location." 1287 is 13th century. "The oldest part of today's church is the 13th century base of this tower.The oldest part of today's church is the 13th century base of this tower." So the question is: "Are those remnants from before 1287 same as 13th century base of the tower?

Trying again: some of the remnants are the foundation of todays tower, but there may be other which they excavated, took photos, described, closed again. Does it even matter if the remnants are exactly equal to the foundation of the tower. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If they are, then you need to say that they are. Remove "13th century" and add "remnants of Romanesque church". This is important. Disconnected text isn't good.

I removed the second sentence, which doesn't say much more than the first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

5) "The interior was changed from 1665. Arnold Harnisch (Mainz) and Hans Martin Sattler (Idstein) removed the vaults and built "Marmorarkaden" (marble arcades). Galleries were installed on three sides in 1675." Unreferenced.

I'll see what I can find. I doubled the ref of the Denkmalpflege (care of historic monuments). - Thank you for looking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

More to come. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

6) "The rebuilding lasted from 1665 to 1677." Previous section says that present church is from 14th century. Please replace this "rebuilding" with something else. Remodeling?

Not sure enough about the slight differences of such terms. "remodeling" sounds too weak for a process which drastically changed the building. Any suggestion? --GA

7) "The interior was changed from 1665" is ambiguous. What exactly does this mean?

I mean "beginning in", but dropped the sentence altogether. It's the same year interior as exterior. --GA

8) I would suggest merging two two-line paras in section "Protestant church" with the main para.

I wouldn't for the first of them, to align with the image, and the other, about the tower, has nothing to do with the selected seating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

9) "Count Johann, infamous for his persecution of witches (Hexenverfolgung) as late as 1676,[5] died shortly before the reconstruction of the church was completed." This has no connection with the rest of the text. Why is this important or relevant?

... because he was the one who initiated the restructuring (thank you for that word). Slight hint hint that the money to pay for the great art may have come from what was taken from "witches" - a chilling thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome;) Well, then you must mention that he initiated the project. And isn't hinting at this witch robbing in connection to financing the church building leaning to OR, unless the source also mentions this?

Second sentence under Protestant church says that he initiated the restructuring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

10) "A 1725 fresco above the altar by Maximilan Pronner (Gießen) shows the vision of St. John in the Book of Revelation, Worthy is the Lamb (Revelation 5:12ff), which Handel painted in music to conclude his oratorio Messiah."

10.1) Worthy is the Lamb refers to fresco by Maximilan Pronner?

10.2) Who is Handel? George Frideric Handel? If yes, then please give full name and link on the first instance.

10.3) What does "painted in music" mean?

10.1 Worthy is the Lamb is the beginning of the biblical passage, speaking of a vision, which the mural depicts, and which inspired Handel's setting of the passage.

10.2 Yes, that one, and linked, and Messiah twice. (Normally, we don't link to the composer when the work has an article, but it's far enough here to break the guideline.)

You had full name with link down in "Concerts".

10:3 changed, please check again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.

11) "In 1726, additional wooden pillars in the shape of palm trees were installed." There is no previous mention of "wooden pillars" to warrant "additional". Maybe they are regular part of church buildings, but I don't know this, and many readers wouldn't know this in advance.

I see. We can just drop additional. Or can we say that these "pillars" are purely decorative, added to those really supporting the structure? I haven't seen anything like that anywhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Source suggests that since the original stone pillars were removed in 17th century, these wooden ones were added in 18th century to restore the support. So I would think it should be something like "In 1726, new supporting columns/pillars, made from wood and shaped into palm trees, were added."

"My" source says "1726 zusätzliche Holzstützen in Form von Palmbäumen", - additional, not replacing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

12) "The crystal chandeliers from the early 19th century were originally in the old Kurhaus Wiesbaden." Please rephrase this. Current formulation presumes that the reader has been there or somehow knows that crystal chandeliers are there and are from 19th century, and the sentence only adds to the readers info that they were originally in Kurhaus.

Well, a reader sees one on the lead image, and may have wondered what such a strange thing does in a church, but you are right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

13) Section "Burials" is unreferenced.

Yes, I see, will take care of it, - drop or find something, but first need to get ready for travel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, viel spaß ;)

Most (and more, especially their wives) are mentioned but with their German names in ref "Monument". Balthasar isn't but in a different source. Hope that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

14) "Franz Matthias Hiernle [de] constructed an epitaph for Georg August Samuel von Nassau-Idstein,..." Okay, his burial is mentioned in the relevant section, but here too you need to mention it before discussion of "epitaph".

The source (again #1, one sentence later) says "Monumentales Grabmal", - would you say that differently in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed myself.

15) "whose wife Gisela Schuster conducts the Flötenensemble (recorder ensemble) at the church." Trivial stuff.

She is a great woman, doing this from a wheelchair, but that is probably trivia for WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

16) Please remove duplinks.

One I see is "Evangelische Kirche i Nassau", linking to the same as "Evangelische Kirche in Hessen", but it's not obvious to a reader that both are handled in one article. I also link in image captions even if the same is linked in the body, - for readers who only (or first) look there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources & links

17) External link "Unionskirche: history" dead.

fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

18) I couldn't find "Feast of Herod" in [3]. Secondly, any source used here should also support the claim that "The Wedding at Cana" is based on "Feast of Herod".

No wonder, the museum restructured their site. I added the new url, and another ref (Schmidt) for the relation of the images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

19) [4] (now [5]) doesn't support anything that it is cited for.

It cites the formal gardens. The rest is something you see on the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt This is going to be a bone of contention here. That "garden in the background resembles the Idstein residential palace of Johann of Nassau-Idstein" is OR.

Changing the wording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

20) "and use Baroque optical illusionism to make the viewer look up" is not supported by [2].

Can you perhaps help to better wording? They all show scenes where you look up to the sky, - the the pictured Kreuzabnahme where you see the figures from below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is same as in above. If it is not in the source you've used, but you are asserting it based on your personal knowledge of the building, it is Original Research.

Not the same as above. You (not I) can see how the scene is towards the sky, and you can see the figures from below. It's like saying something about the colours you can see. How can that be worded better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't see :D I believe you that it is so, but you need to provide a source which says that it is so.

Let's see. You can't see that the scene is towards the sky and you see the figures from below? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

"and use Baroque optical illusionism to make the viewer look up" This is not something that I can see. This is a claim about some technique, and it does need a source. This is not something "Water formula is H2O or sky is blue".

I translated that from the German, and am sure it's in the detailed source about the paintings. However, I don't have the book, so simplified the sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me the name of the book? I should be able to find it. Thanks.

No. 3 in "Literature". Review is ref #3, quite critical. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find it.

Anyway, the sentence is no longer in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

21) "It is located in today's pedestrian area of the town." is not supported by [8] (now [9]).

What can we do. Here is a map. Should I add it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The map is helpful, but it is copyrighted I think. But it can be used to support the the claim.

I didn't plan to copy it. Should I make the link a reference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes sure.

Anything on this?

Yes, now. Sorry, was sure I did it ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

22) [10] (now [11]) doesn't support Werner Schuster thing.

It says: "den damaligen Bundestagsabgeordneten Dr. Schuster", the former member of parliament Dr. Schuster, - that's the one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The numbering has changed since you added new ref. [10] here refers to current [11]. It doesn't. [9] (which is [10] now) does.

The numbering changed again. [7] name Moshi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This link is from former [9], my concern was with former [10], which is now [15]- link. Now it is cited for "Kinderkantorei (children's chorale), Jugendkantorei (youth chorale), Gospelchor (gospel choir), Flötenensemble (recorder ensemble) and Posaunenchor (trombone choir)." It doesn't any of these. my bad :D

23) Ref [14] dead link.

As I said, it's an old article, and the paper keeps articles only for two years. I'll rewrite the whole section, based on the more recent article on the conductor, but not now, - sitting at the airport, - not enough peace ;) - same for the next 2 qs.

updated in the meantime --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I used the other ref for the piece, and the - now offline - paper only for the soloist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

24) Can you find replacement of Ref [13]?

Assuming it's Missa sacra - numbering changed. You'll have to click on "Performances" [8] here, - I don't know how to reach that immediately. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem with it is that it is a seller website and it supports only on part (i.e performance of Koch in 2008), other info that he is prof, or that he overtook Konditorie in 2003 isn't supported by it. At least part of it is supported by updated [21]. For other portions please find some better source.

I updated the concerts, and will add a ref for his bio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Plz ping me when you've added that.

Done, ref #14 Frankfurt --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding, but the page link directs to is not Koch's profile. All it says is this: "Lehrendenprofil

Hinweis. Die Verantwortung für die Inhalte in den Lehrenden-Portraits liegt bei den jeweiligen Lehrenden, die HfMDK übernimmt keine Haftung bei fehlerhaften Angaben."

Sorry, - it still worked when I copied, but no more. Replaced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

25) [20] dead link.

Dropped altogether, fact supported by a working one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

26) [16] needs a link.

"Bachtage"? - that's a program book, offline. --GA

Can you find some better, verifiable source?

I added the Kantorei's repertoire. St. Martin had no website yet, and has no (good) website now, because all history was lost when the parishes merged. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

27) [18] points to a Wikipedia page.

Utrecht Te Deum? - Also a program book. Wikipedia page goes to the publisher. --GA

As above.

I added a newspaper review, from GA St. Martin, Idstein. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. now that you have a better ref, plz remove the unverifiable one.

28) [21] link needs update.

Done, good catch! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

29) [22] also dead.

OK, dropped that 2012 info Will eventually replace by more recent.

Placing on hold. Article can certainly pass when the ref issues and the other unresolved issues have been fixed.

Final thoughts

Here are the remaining unresolved issues:

• "and use Baroque optical illusionism to make the viewer look up" couldn't be verified and its rephrasing doesn't address the concern: Personal analysis or OR.
• Idsteiner Bachtage ([18] currently), Georg Friedrich Händel Utrechter Te Deum Utrechter Jubilate Hörnicke ([19]), Eggert, Wulf ([21]), Richard ([25]) remain unverfiable.

Please replace these with something verifiable or remove them and the claims associated with them. ThanksAhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 19:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The "illusions" left the article some time ago. - There's nothing wrong with offline sources. I'd offer to take photos, only I lost my camera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no problem with a source being offline, but with event manuals and pamphlets. If there is, say, a book with author-name, publisher, ISBN, page info, I wouldn't mind if it wasn't accessible.

@Gerda Arendt: In order to proceed towards a resolution, I went ahead and removed the fragment "that make the viewer look up to the sky, from the altar to the back". ;) If only you do something about the pamphlets, I think this would be ready for GAhood.

Edit conflict: a program book is not a pamphlet. Anyway, before you asked:

1. ref 18 is used for the same fact as (online) source 17.

Well, then its easy. Why not just remove it if the other verifiable source supports the claim. ;)

1. ref 19 dropped

Cool ;)

1. ref Eggert supports all what former 19 covered, but dropped soloist anyway, - it's a clipping from a serious daily newspaper (with an article), - RS
2. drop soloist who is all Hörnicke (formerly 25) covered

Thanks

Today would be the perfect day for GA ;) - Magnificat possibly first performed 2 July. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you think of something better than "have particular topics"? All paintings have particular topics. Those in the central row show the sky, and that is particular about them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't understand this.

Your change, and I didn't understand this, as explained above, trying harder "particular topics that make the viewer look up to the sky, from the altar to the back" explained - perhaps not worded well - why these paintings have a particular position, - now the sentence doesn't say what's particular. Can you word it better, perhaps? - It's not OR, btw, but something everybody who is in the church can see. - One of these days, I can make a list of the paintings and their program, but not today. I have a recent death article to take care of, and a RMF event in the evening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt::I have removed remaining pamphlets. If you've no problem with it, I will pass it today. As a compromise, I have left Missa Sarca ref in the article. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

no problem - some day I may talk to you about "pamphlets" but not on TFA day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Allright. Thanks. What do you mean by TFA day?

• Pass-finally ;) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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