This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) at 09:47, 8 May 2021 (→Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227: rply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:47, 8 May 2021 by Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) (→Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227: rply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a piece dear to me and I'd like to see it growing to FA quality. Francis Schonken brought it to GA quality, and we welcome suggestions to improve it further.
Thanks, Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- These are some ideas I mentioned a month ago: "... the rather haphazard ref formatting would make little chance to pass FAC unscathed, and that is only one of many things: others I'm thinking of include the Picardy third ending of the third movement (not even mentioned leave alone a source for it); the far from perfect image for the fifth movement; less than perfect overview of performances and recordings history, ..." – I don't have much time for more now, but will return to this as soon as I have. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- About the last point I mentioned above, see also Talk:Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227#Split discography. In general, Gerda Arendt, were you planning on addressing the issues I already mentioned? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to see this article growing, and I see you as its main author. At this point, I'd like to hear what people think. Whether to even try to go to FAC or not depends on what it means in terms of work. I'd like to avoid the problems we had in BWV 1, with few comments in the peer review, and massive questions in the FAC which clutter the whole page. For the specific case of recordings, I'd like to see most details, such as performers, outside this article, but whether in the motets' recordings or an individual discography I don't care. Please feel like the main author - you are the one who took this to GA, and we'd nominate together - and add what you miss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- ? You initiated this peer review. I commented in it, I'd hardly think that signifies I am the one reacting to the comments. And, for sure, I don't WP:OWN the article: trying to take this to FAC is, according to the OP of this peer review, your initiative, not mine. So either react on the suggestions, or we probably could as well have done with this peer review. I mean, it has been open long enough, and you've made it clear that whatever suggestion that is given, you don't feel invited to adopt it or react to it. Whether I take this to FAC in the future is my decision: if you're not prepared to follow up on suggestions given in a peer review it seems quite inappropriate you'd think you should be the one taking this to FAC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to reply on your talk, because it's not related to the article, but as that is not open: I'd like to hear from people besides you and me. Depending on that, I'll decide if I'll take the extra time it would take. I am perfectly busy without doing so, was just unhappy with a DYK saying nothing about the music of one of the pieces that played a role in my life. I did here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I find your comments on Hammersoft's talk page messy, unclear, rather like an inside-thing, anyways, as far as I can tell, not related to improving the encyclopedia. So indeed, no user talk pages (nor any other Misplaced Pages pages) seem particularly suitable for this. Also, it does away with the myth that you wouldn't have time to improve the motet article: your time for user talk page comments that are, as far as discernible, not directly related to an improvement of the encyclopedia seems unlimited: maybe use that time for improving articles? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to reply on your talk, because it's not related to the article, but as that is not open: I'd like to hear from people besides you and me. Depending on that, I'll decide if I'll take the extra time it would take. I am perfectly busy without doing so, was just unhappy with a DYK saying nothing about the music of one of the pieces that played a role in my life. I did here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- ? You initiated this peer review. I commented in it, I'd hardly think that signifies I am the one reacting to the comments. And, for sure, I don't WP:OWN the article: trying to take this to FAC is, according to the OP of this peer review, your initiative, not mine. So either react on the suggestions, or we probably could as well have done with this peer review. I mean, it has been open long enough, and you've made it clear that whatever suggestion that is given, you don't feel invited to adopt it or react to it. Whether I take this to FAC in the future is my decision: if you're not prepared to follow up on suggestions given in a peer review it seems quite inappropriate you'd think you should be the one taking this to FAC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to see this article growing, and I see you as its main author. At this point, I'd like to hear what people think. Whether to even try to go to FAC or not depends on what it means in terms of work. I'd like to avoid the problems we had in BWV 1, with few comments in the peer review, and massive questions in the FAC which clutter the whole page. For the specific case of recordings, I'd like to see most details, such as performers, outside this article, but whether in the motets' recordings or an individual discography I don't care. Please feel like the main author - you are the one who took this to GA, and we'd nominate together - and add what you miss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)