Template:Did you know nominations/Missodia Sionia

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HalfGig talk 02:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Missodia Sionia

edit
Michael Praetorius
Michael Praetorius

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC).

  • This article is new enough and long enough. The image is not eligible for use in DYK as it does not occur in the article. Can I suggest ALT1? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that in 1611, Michael Praetorius published Missodia Sionia, a collection of 104 pieces of sacred music in Latin, including 14 settings of "Amen" and a mass for eight voices?
Thank you for the review. The ALT is probably better English, but I'm afraid that some readers will turn away reading 1611. Sorry about the image, - when I nominated I didn't have the better one (once you look at the details), and when it was added to the article, I forgot to change this nom.
Missodia Sionia
Missodia Sionia
ALT2: ... that Michael Praetorius published Missodia Sionia (title page pictured), a collection of 104 pieces of sacred music in Latin, including 14 Amen and a mass for eight voices?
Can we easily say that he composed these pieces? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I do prefer including "14 settings of Amen" rather than "14 Amen" (or should it be Amens), like the end of the Messiah. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that Michael Praetorius published Missodia Sionia (title page pictured), a collection of 104 pieces of sacred music in Latin, including 14 settings of Amen and a mass for eight voices? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed, since previous reviewer suggested ALT1. Note that only a few criteria were mentioned in the original review; the remaining criteria, including referencing, close paraphrasing, and neutrality, need to be covered, as does checking for the new image. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Do your realize that ALT1 was only better English for the same facts, as are all other ALTs? The review could be completed by the same reviewer. I am striking ALT1, per the improvements in later ALTs.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Approving ALT3. The new image is in the public domain, the article is neutral, and as the sources are in German, I can't determine whether there are any policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)