Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Easter Oratorio/archive1

Image review

• File:Nikolaikirche_Leipzg_1749_(Kupferstich)_Foto_H.-P.Haack.JPG: under US law, reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for status of the original work rather than the reproduction.

Storye book fixed the licensing. --GA

The tagging is now contradictory - it has one tag saying the author's date of death is unknown and another giving a specific author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Storye book, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Also noticed inconsistencies in citation formatting that should be cleaned up before a full source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll look into that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, have you fixed these? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I did what I could. I am not show I understood, though. Nikkimaria? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Image is fixed; I'll leave it to the source reviewer to address citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• Cantata could be linked at least once.

  I tried Bach cantata, - the general cantata seems very far off. --GA

History

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives,... Could the phrase "only composing" be rephrased with "composing only"?

  yes if you say so --GA

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives, for a church cantata for Easter Sunday. Could the phrase "on Easter Sunday" be used here?

  in this case, it's the occasion rather than the date --GA

• The first performances came on Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725, after Bach had led the his St John Passion in its second version on Good Friday. There's a typo in this sentence.

  fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Movements

• The music of the arias and the closing chorus, Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11, correspond to movements of the Shepherd Cantata, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10,... It should be "corresponds" (not "correspond"), since "music" is singular.

  fixed, but perhaps there is a better way, - it's more that movements correspond (regarding the music) --GA

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is well-written. Good luck with your nomination. Support. MSincccc (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I will not insist upon it, but a few minor changes could be made to the lead if you want to-

• "chorus of praise and thanks" → "chorus of praise and thanksgiving"– More standard in British usage.

  taken --GA

• "Recitatives, with the characters talking among each other" → "recitatives, in which the characters talk among themselves"

  interesting, - that sounds to me like talking to self - try "conversation" --GA

• "Jesus has risen" → "Jesus is risen" since "is risen" is the traditional and preferred British liturgical form.MSincccc (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  interesting, it was like that, but during GA review, both 750h+ and Michael Aurel requested a change. ("Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" is a phrase I remember from U.S. services also.) --GAGerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  To chime in here, I wasn't protesting the use of the phrase "is risen", but the use of the phrase "was risen", which doesn't quite work grammatically. (Intransitive verbs don't take objects; we can say that "X rises", but not that "X rises Y". Here the use of the passive voice places "Jesus" as the object. A more obvious example would be that we can say "John sneezed", but not that "John was sneezed".)

  I suggested "has risen" as a replacement, no doubt because the standard, modern phrasing for the verb "risen" came to my mind before the more archaic construction did, but I don't have any issue with using the phrase "is risen". We probably shouldn't start writing "He is come" and "He is fled" about the place, but "is risen" sounds entirely fine to me in a religious context. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

History (after a re-read)

• it's first title was Kommt, gehet und eilet (Come, go and hurry), but soon changed to Kommt, fliehet und eilet (Come, flee and hurry). "it's" → "its" (possessive pronoun, not contraction).
• "well-suited for" → "well suited to" – British usage.

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

taken, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Michael Aurel

Post-FAC note: this review has been moved to the FAC talk page because the WP:PEIS limit has been exceeded for the July 2025 FAC page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

UC

Interesting stuff throughout. Most of the points below are nitpicks on grammar, sense and style, particularly around getting the flow of natural English. In a couple of places, I found the musical terminology tricky to follow: I think we need to make sure that a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation can still pick up what's going on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

UC ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been waiting for Michael to conclude above, as it looks like a lot of movement has been happening. I think it's looking like things are coming down there, so I'll resume soonish. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (support)

I'll take a shot at this. I more or less meet UndercoverClassicist's description of "a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation". I know a little about music, but I'm far from an expert and totally clueless about Baroque.

Thank you for reviewing! --GA

• Wikilink to Liturgical year

  done --GA

• He wrote the St John Passion, an extended dramatic Passion, for Good Friday 1724.[5] I'd leave out "an extended dramatic Passion" to avoid the repetition. Or maybe "He wrote the extended dramatic St John Passion for Good Friday 1724"?

  I'd like to point out that the Passion was an extended piece and a dramatic piece, both in contrary to the cantatas. A Passion is a special kind of oratorio, so I wonder if we could say "an extended dramatic oratorio"? --GA

  How about "He wrote the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724; unlike the cantatas, this was a dramatic piece, and of extended length"?

  I tried something similar, - "piece" seems a bit too little ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach continued to write new cantatas, now composing chorale cantatas again, I'd avoid the repetition with something like "Bach continued to compose new chorale cantatas ..."

  Well, yes, but the chorale cantatas are so exceptional that it would sound too harmless, rephrased differently --GA

• a format that he kept until Palm Sunday of 1725, when Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, was first performed on Palm Sunday.[6] Likewise, I'd leave off the trailing "on Palm Sunday".

  good catch, that was unintended --GA

• It was followed by the second version of the St John Passion performed on Good Friday.[1][7] In addition to being clueless about Baroque music, I'm clueless about Catholic holidays, so I was confused about Good Friday coming after Palm Sunday. I had to go look up Palm Sunday to discover that it's the week before Easter Sunday. Would it work to say "... was first performed on Palm Sunday (a week before Easter). It was followed by ... five days later, on Good Friday"?

  I would be possible, but most readers who get this far into the article, will know - Holy Week being the highest holidays in all Christianity. (Bach was Lutheran, btw.) There are links, and with the link to Liturgical year, there's now one more ;) --GA

• It seems likely that Bach planned from the start ... whose opinion is this? I'm assuming that's from one of the sources, so "Leisinger/Frindle/Veen considered it likely that ..."

  I haven't read any source that did not think so. Not all of them would agree that Picander was the librettist, but nobody had doubts about the plan to use the music for both occasions. I just try to not add more than 3 refs to one fact. --GA

• composing only new recitatives Give the reader a hint, "composing only new recitatives (spoken sections) ..."

  I'd hesitate. (It's not spoken but sung.) recitative and aria are very common in classical music, - perhaps compare some FA about Bach works. --GA

• It seems likely that Picander, again, attribute that opinion to whoever said it.

  I thought that it becomes clear by what follows: it must have been someone who knew both the other text and the music very well, and there are not many candidates. - Today however, two new sources didn't think it was him, one thinking that Bach did it himself. I'll think about it. (The same situation, btw, is in the very famous Christmas Oratorio, - practically everybody thinks that he wrote its text but he didn't publish it.) --GA

• arias of four Biblical character characters (plural)? I was also going to say that Biblical should be lower case, but hunting around I see that it's sometimes considered correct to capitalize it, so whatever.

  typo, thank you for the catch, - you are welcome to make obvious fixes yourself! --GA

• Simon (tenor) (and likewise for the others) WP:SEAOFBLUE

  the brackets are not blue - what would you suggest? --GA

  It takes a careful reading (and younger eyes than mine) to notice that the brackets are a different color. I've played with this a bit and can't come up with anything that really works better. Maybe one of the other reviewers might have some ideas?

  the others so far had no problem - we could delink tenor and bass (linked in the lead and in Music) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The cantata, different from the secular model, is now opened by ... I'm not sure what you mean by "now". Are you referring to modern performances in contrast to how it would have been performed in the 18th century?

  I added that "now" only today, but will drop it if it causes misunderstanding. Perhaps "in contrast" is clear enough about that - while the major five movements have the same music in both cantatas - the unusual opening by two contrasting movements is only there in the Easter cantata. --GA

• Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles,[11] twice, in the morning service ... this seems kind of complicated. I suggest breaking it up: "Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles.[11] They gave two performances; one in the morning service ..."

  taken, thank you --GA

• The Bach scholar Markus Rathey I think people can assume his area of scholarship is Bach.

  I'll try that. I tend to describe a bit when people don't have an article. --GA

• For Easter Sunday 1738, 6 April 1738 don't repeat the year.

  yes --GA

• the assignment of a flauto traverso I'd add "(transverse flute")

  it was only that until I noticed that it doesn't mean the same thing, flauto traverso being specifically Baroque, the other any flute blown sideways --GA

• He made several changes; Ulrich Leisinger, who prepared a critical edition for the publisher Carus, mentioned four of them in his preface, the insertion of a measure in the first movement, the assignment of a flauto traverso as the solo instrument in the second movement, in the alto aria a different underlay of the text in the middle section and five additional measures at the end for better proportion, and the assignment of an oboe d'amore as the obbligato instrument in this aria.[1][33] This is an overly-complex sentence and should be broken up.

  I'll try a list then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

(I'll pick up with "Movements" next time)

• My major concern about the Movements section is that it's broken up into a large number of small subsections, which in turn have lots of short paragraphs (some just a single sentence). I think this would work better if you got rid of the level-4 headings and turned it into running prose, mostly one (substantially longer) paragraph for each movement.

  I am not sure I understand because the level-4-headers are for the movements. I could, of course, throw everything under one of those headers into one paragraph, but tried to visually brake when one para deals with the secular cantata but another with the Easter work, or 1 and 2 are handled together because they belong together but then comes info about only 1, then only 2, then again common. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I tried an example in my sandbox.

  Thank you for trying but for me, the level-4-headers are almost a must to get oriented. (I like for example that visibly the recitative sections are shorter, providing weight at a glance.) The headers relate to the links in the table, and are consistent with most other GA cantata articles and all other FA cantata articles. Compare BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• You use a few different styles for translating phrases. Early on you have the German in italics followed by the English inside parentheses and qoutes, i.e. Kommt, fliehet und eilet ("Come, flee and hurry"). Later on I see both in roman and quoted "Kommt, eilet und laufet" ("Come, hasten and run") and both in roman and just the German quoted "Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares). Looking at the source, I don't see any difference in the markup, and I'm at a loss to explain why different examples render differently, but this should be tracked down.
  • Oh, I see. The three versions are:
  • {{lang|de|Kommt, fliehet und eilet}} ("Come, flee and hurry")
  • "{{langr|de|Kommt, eilet und laufet}}" ("Come, hasten and run"))
  • "{{langr|de|Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen}}" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares))

  The roman vs italic is the use of {{lang}} vs {{langr}} and the quotes are right there in the markup. Pick one style and stick with it.

  sorry, no: we have to distinguish two things, titles and text. I don't have German phrases italic, or half the article would be italic, but titles: yes italic (lang). Their translations, however, are no titles, therefore not italic and sentence case. Reviewer UC talked me into giving the translations quotation marks (see that review). Text, however, is just in quotation marks (langr), and its translations just in brackets. It may seem confusing that the same words are sometimes a title, and at other times the beginning of text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• and its character as a musical drama The word "character" has (at least) two different meanings. In most places in the article, you're using it in the sense of "a biblical character", but in this place you're using it as "style", which I think it a little confusing, so perhaps find a different word here.

  would you know one? - "style" is not it, and English not my first language - I rephrased it. --GA

  Consulting the keeper of all English knowledge, maybe " distinctive nature" or "expressive quality"?

  thanks for searching, but they read more like explanations, - not quite to the point here. I rephrased it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Are "manuscript" and "autograph" synonyms? You use them both and it's not clear if there's a distinction being drawn.

  they are not, manuscript is anything written by hand, and autograph (manuscript) is an author's manuscript - I used "manuscript" in the sentence "when he wrote a new manuscript copy" when it's clear that the author wrote, and about the manuscript parts for which it's not clear who wrote them, - usually scribes would perform that job. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• historically informed performances are shown with a green background This causes accessibility problems, per MOS:COLOR.

  without mentioning it, they are also distinguished by the words "Period" and "OVPP". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, that does it for me. For the most part, this is very nice and made for an enjoyable read for somebody (i.e. me) with very little famiarity of the subject. Most of the above are minor issues. The biggest thing in my mind is the layout of the Movements section. RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for diligent reading and good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The trumpets play a broken chord, you wikilink chord, but it would be better to link broken chord. Unfortunately, that just redirects to Chord (music) which doesn't actually say anything about broken chords. Arpeggio talks about broken chords but only to the extent of saying that arpeggios are one type. So this could all use some clarification. Perhaps add a short explanation in-line of what you mean by "broken chord"? Does it mean arpeggio here, or something else? Or at least, add something to Chord (music) which explains what a broken chord is (I can't think of anybody more qualified to do that) and then link broken chord directly to that section.

Finally, I return, Roy. I am not sure. It's not an arpeggio, when the notes of a chord are not played at the exactly same time, which is possible on a piano, but in fast succession, like on a harp, but still sounding together. Here, the notes of a major chord form the melody one after the other, like steps or jumps, and I don't know how to say that. I actually thought that it is a familiar phrase. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a familiar phrase to music experts, but WP:TECHNICAL. You're the expert on this stuff; if you can't figure out how to explain it, nobody else will. RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I know it in German, but not in English. Aza24, DBAK, could you perhaps look into the wording? It's the final movement (11) and sounds like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Any progress here? RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody answered. I changed it to just "fanfare". None of the sources is specific, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow reply. I think it's quite nicely resolved now. Tbh I am not sure I was listening to the right place – is it the trumpets at the very start of no. 11, "Preis und Dank"? If so I think fanfare works better than something involving chords, but I am happy to discuss further. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

PS In celebration of this enquiry I got my natural trumpet out to have a look at the Oratorio. I can confirm I'm still a terrible nat player! DBaK (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm still not a fan of how the Movements section is laid out, and I still think there could be more explaining of some music terms (such as "recitatives") per WP:TECHNICAL, but overall this reads well and taught me some things about a topic I previously knew almost nothing about, so I'll support on that basis, and with the expectation that music SMEs will be digging deeper into the those aspects of the article. RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sailing moose

The trumpets are not playing a broken chord. They are playing simultaneously, which is a regular chord.Sailing moose (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

We are talking about the melody formed by the three first notes sung, text: "Preis und Dank", which are played first by the first trumpet). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying; but if you are going to be this specific about musical ideas, measure numbers would be helpful. Sailing moose (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, the source says that the first measure belongs to the trumpets alone, and when the voices enter (and the instruments repeat), the voices sing a "Devise" (motto) - the text "Preis und Dank" - to music taken from the trumpets. How can we say that without saying exactly the same (because it would by copyvio)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

EFG EFG G___? That bit? DBaK (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see above: replaced by "fanfare", and that's all the sources say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep I commented above too! :) DBaK (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Seen now, will reply only here: I looked now at the score, for some original research. Movement 11, p. 54 in the Leisinger pdf source, no measure numbers. I can see that the trumpets are not written in D major (but C major) which is confusing to me ;) - The bass voices sing "Preis und Dank" on the next page, measures 9 to 10, D A F-sharp, three notes of the D major chord downwards. The trumpets have one measure of triplets in preparation in measure 1, but then the same intervals in measures 2 to 3, just with a dotted rhythm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

750h

Don't have much to say since i was the GA reviewer, but i think the lead has too many paragraphs. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 4 or less, but i think 5 is fine. 750h+ 06:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! I moved this in chronology after I couldn't find it. The typical FA doesn't have 4 versions, I guess, which should be distinguished for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping you after more changes, - it already changed a lot since you reviewed for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Parsecboy - support

Chalk me up as another "reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation"!

• Should we link less common instruments like oboe d'amore in the lead? (I have a "was in high school band many years ago" level of familiarity with types of instruments, so that and the flauto traverso were new to me). I see they're linked further down in the body, but links in the lead are probably worth repeating.

  We can but some may not know violin, and then we get many links, to instruments all featured in Baroque ensemble. --GA

• Can we work in a direct link to cantata somewhere in the lead? I had to go down a bit of a rabbit hole (from Church cantata (Bach) to Bach cantata before I got to Cantata).

  We could but it would feel like a link to ball when talking about an individual game. Also: cantata has so many meanings that it may confuse rather than enlighten. --GA

• "It seems likely that Picander who wrote the libretto for the Shepherd Cantata also wrote..." - the "who wrote the libretto for the Shepherd Cantata" clause should be offset by commas.

  done --GA

• "Bach had the time to think of larger musical forms in 1732, an official year of mourning with no festive music." - presumably this should be 1733, not 1732? And can we work in a reference to the death of Augustus II the Strong? Readers will probably question why there was a year of mourning.

  1733, thank you. (I shouldn't write from memory). - There seem to be so many things (not mentioned) more relevant to the music than who exactly died eight years after it was written. But if it would help you, we could. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  I was thinking of something as simple as "an official year of mourning with no festive music, following the death of Augustus II, the Elector of Saxony". I think an obvious question readers could have is "whose death was so important that they couldn't celebrate for a whole year?" It would probably also be a good idea to situate Leipzig in the Electorate of Saxony earlier in the article, which would make clear the connection between the death of Augustus and the year of mourning.

  rephrased, Parsecboy, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good to me - happy to support now. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• "In the third recitative, a dialogue of a man and a woman in the secular work, the two women express their burning desire to see Jesus again, "Indessen seufzen wir" (Meanwhile we sigh)," - there are some issues with this sentence, which I think has probably been rewritten one time too many. We're missing a verb in the clause about the secular work, and there's a missing transition to the sacred version in the next clause. It also ends with a comma, not a period.

  Splitting. Sometimes I still write English like German. --GA

  I struggle with this sometimes when I'm translating German sources ;)

• "Dürr's 1971 analysis still showed a critical view,[12] but acknowledged the work as in the tradition of Easter plays." - I assume the footnote should be moved to the end of the sentence? Or do we need an additional reference for the second half of the sentence?

  I don't know. A reference for the critical view seems more important that for something said earlier, with a reference to Dürr. --GA

That's all from me for now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for a helpful look! Please check, Parsecboy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Why do some sources with multiple pages not have page numbers? Leisinger 2003 for example seems to have 104 pages. Some pagenumbers are also linked and others not. Some websites are marked as website and others with an URL in the "website" parameters. What make Musik an sich, Rondo, funk-stiftung, musica-dei-donum.org and Bach Cantatas website a reliable source? Is the Michael Maul de:Michael Maul? Uwe Wolf seems to be a false link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it.

• pagenumbers: I try to link Wolff 2002 and Dürr/Jones
• tried to unify websites
• source quality:
  1. Musik an sich: ref only supporting, could be dropped
  2. Rondo: magazine for classical music and jazz, review only used to support existence of recordings and different ways to interpret Bach's change to movement 3
  3. funk-stiftung: private non-profit foundation to support different field including culture, ref only supporting
  4. musica-dei-donum.org a review by an author used often for classical music, ref only supporting, could be dropped
  5. Bach Cantatas: for the longest time Wikipedia's only source for Bach's cantatas, the most detailed information about their recordings. In this article, it's used only for the recordings. In one recent GA review, the reviewer accepted it as cited in other cases. I forgot where exactly, sadly. If we don't want to do that, options are to split the discography off, as for BWV 1, or to support each recording by a supporting source.
• The only page of interest in the Leisinger (Carus edition) is the foreword, pp VI–VII, which are given.
• Michael Maul seems to be the one.
• linked now to Uwe Wolf (musicologist) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

adding: I linked now the listing of the recordings by Muziekweb as support they exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Afternoon Jo-Jo. How is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

On Bach Cantatas, I see some citations of this website. Is that platform commonly cited? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Repeating: it's only used for the recordings, and Muziekweb is also referenced to support that they exist, but the detail and depth of information available is much higher for Bach Cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I guess then we can keep it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Jo-Jo: GTG? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Aza24

Nice work so far Gerda. I think the lead might be too unwieldy; MOS:LEADLENGTH says "The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words"—right now, you're sitting at ~525. I don't think this article is long enough to warrent the extra 120 or so. The revision paragraphs (2nd, 3rd, 5th) can be streamlined. – Aza24 (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! - It's not length but that we have to cover 3 and more variants. I will try, and you are welcome to do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I shortened the lead, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.