Talk:Carillon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 02:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review. Expect comments in the next few days or so. Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Hi, I want to mention in advance that I think the article's table under "Distribution" will be the biggest obstacle in this nomination process. I want to give some context. There are two main groups that count carillons: the World Carillon Federation (WCF) and TowerBells.org. The WCF counts only those carillons which are played with a baton keyboard ("traditional carillons"). TowerBells counts traditional carillons, but they also have separate lists for non-traditional carillons, which do not have a baton keyboard, may be electronic, be played primarily by a computer, etc. In the news, when carillonneurs discuss the distribution of carillons in their region, in their country, or throughout the world, they cite the count of traditional carillons. I chose to have the count in the article's table reflect that. I also realize that the "carillon density" columns are probably not all that valuable to include, because the values are extremely small for even the U.S., the country with the second most number of carillons, and extremely high tiny islands with one carillon, like Curaçao. Would it be better to restructure the table to have three columns: 1) country, 2) count of traditional carillons according to WCF, and 3) count of traditional carillons according to TowerBells? Thrakkx (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be interesting and more complete to include the non-traditional ones separately, in a format similar to the one you've proposed. Though I assume the numbers for the traditional carillons would come from both the WCF and towerbells.org—or do their numbers not match? For the density, it's up to you in the end, but if the sources you're citing include them, I'm inclined to think we should as well. Aza24 (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the WCF does not count non-traditional carillons at all, and neither source considers the density of carillons. I'm thinking a three column table: traditional carillons per WCF, traditional carillons per TowerBells, and non-traditional carillons per TowerBells. What do you think? Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a solid solution—the densities, if notable at all, would probably find more use in List of carillons anyways. Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Lead

Are there any places that these bell towers are particularly common? Building type wise—I mean (churchs?) perhaps something about that could be briefly included after "Usually housed in a bell tower"

Added Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there are no suitable links for the primary parts of the instrument. e.g. pedal, baton clapper?

Comment: Correct, though there is Pedal keyboard, so I linked that to "pedal" Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps add that the player is a called a "carillonneur" or "carillonist" near "by those who play and study them"; the line seems to be asking for it, in my mind. If done, you could bold it as well, since it redirects here

Removed in the process of rewriting that sentence to fix the link to Chime (bell instrument). Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If non-traditional carillons are independent enough to be counted separately by towerbells.org (and not at all by the WCF), I wonder if the distinction can briefly be mentioned, maybe in the final paragraph of the lead. Perhaps Traveling carillons can be extremely briefly mentioned here as well, in order to—since they have their own section—fully sum up the article

Added Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"and simple tunes are played throughout the day"?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure why Chime (bell instrument) links where it does, is there a way to rephrase the sentence to make the reason clearer?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is there an average weight available you could mention after the heaviest?

Added Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

maybe mention the oldest after "constructed in the last century."?—though this might be too trivial, something to consider

Comment: I will look for a source that lists the oldest surviving, since TowerBells does not. For now, I have not added this. Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and terminology

Any ref for its alternate name being "Glockenspiel"—if you're going for FAC, they're pretty stringent about always have refs at the end of sentences (or paragraphs, at the least)

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be nice to give a time period, year range, or century for the War of Spanish Succession, so readers know when in time we're talking about without having to go to a new article.

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

"on a level" seems a little vague, could an approximate metrical amount (i.e. "a foot" "half a meter") or something be given to clarify?

Fixed – "...are raised above the rest, about 10 centimetres (3.9 in)." Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"pedal board is arranged with radiation and concavity" could use links for these terms, I don't think I'm following the definition of "radiation" here

Fixed – "..., such as whether the outer pedals curve toward the center, ..." Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the line about the two main models, I assume that the "WCF Keyboard 2006" hasn't risen to the wide-spread use as either of these two? Perhaps this can be reiterated when bringing up the WCF Keyboard 2006, if true, of course

Fixed. That is true, but I don't have a source that explicitly says this. However, I was able to add a source which explains that the WCF recommends its world standard be consulted when constructing new keyboards. Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any ref for "However, with some instruments, the heaviest bells may be outfitted with a mechanism enabling them to swing."?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"if not more"—for those unfamiliar with the dynamic range of a piano, this line will probably not make sense, what about "if not more versatile"?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any ref for "With weight not standardized across the population, the same music will sound different on each carillon."?

Removed that sentence because it was awkward and unsourced. It's also self-evident that carillons with heavier bells will sound different compared to those with lighter bells. Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

Just checking, does ref 34 cover all of the origins section? If so, I would repeat it at the end of the first paragraph here as well, so that future readers/editors won't think there's a citation missing

Fixed. The correct reference was accidentally omitted. Thrakkx (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any ref for "By 1600, the primitive carillon had become an established feature of the region." or "During the next 36 years, the Hemony brothers went on to produce 51 carillons. Carillon culture experienced a peak in 1750."?

Fixed. Accidentally deleted these citations a handful of edits back. Thrakkx (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usage and repertoire

"Yet, much of the music from this era" is a little confusing; you've just spoke about a multitude of eras, so I'm not exactly sure which is being referred to

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"much of the music"—keyboard music, I presume?

You presumed correctly,

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither composed for it, but they did include carillonic effects in other works" not really sure what this means, who's to say they weren't imitating other types of bells? Is there a ref for this, or maybe a musical example that can be given?

Fixed So the musical example is there, but I hid it within the reference. For the reasons you mention, I haven't really been a fan of this tidbit ever since I added it, so I reworded everything in that paragraph after the Britannica source and moved it to its own paragraph. The point is to highlight that Joseph Haydn is a notable example of a non-carillon player from that period having composed some of the earliest-surviving original compositions for carillon. The current wording definitely distracted from that point. Thrakkx (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a picture from the Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" in the Organization and education section? Just an idea

Good idea,

Added Thrakkx (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

It would help verifibility if the ref(s) for land area and Carillon density can be given directly in the top of the columns

Comment: Per the comments about this section above, I removed the columns on land area and carillon density as the WCF and TowerBells sources do not have this information. The table and accompanying prose was rewritten, so I think it would be best if you gave this section a second look. Thrakkx (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling carillons

Looks good here

Comment: To match the Distribution section, I incorporated TowerBell's count of traveling carillons. I think it would be best if you gave the changes a quick review. Thrakkx (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I wonder is if there are more traditional than non-traditional, or vice versa. Perhaps this is worth including—or is about split? Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added that there are three non-traditional traveling carillons according to TowerBells. Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and other

Can we get a few words after or before "Carillon History" so we know the website/publisher of the external link?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have quite a few dup links, (those linked twice or more in the body–the lead is excluded from this); they're generally discouraged except for those where you have a specific reason to have one. You may want to use User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, to find these

Fixed with the exception of Matthias Vanden Gheyn, the Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn", the University of Kansas, and St. Rombold's Cathedral. In the first two cases, the second link follows a bold statement which I think justifies it ("earliest-surviving compositions the famous eleven preludes of Vanden Gheyn," "most sought-after education program for the carillon in the world"). I also kept the second link to University of Kansas, because I feel it would look out of place between all the other links to universities. The same logic goes for St. Rombold's Cathedral in photo gallery. I imagine for the latter two cases, future editors will keep adding links there anyway. Let me know if these choices should be reconsidered. Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound logic—thanks for cleaning up what is generally a tedious task

I'll take a closer look at the sources later
- See below

Hold

Putting this on hold for a week to address the above comments. If you need extra time, do let me know. Best - Aza24 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aza24:, I have addressed all of your comments. Apologies for updating this page repeatedly—it helped me compartmentalize. Thrakkx (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More source comments

Since I know you're preparing this for FAC, I may be a little picky here
BTW—these things are not required for GA status, so if you want to address my comment in the "Traveling carillons" and address these things at a later date, ping me I'll be more than happy to promote

@Aza24: I have addressed the remainder of your comments. Thanks for going the extra mile to include FAC-specific review comments! Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC for Swager here

Added Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The location inclusion for your books is inconsistent, either all should have one or none

Removed locations. Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the most picky comment you've ever witnessed? There's a little bit of inconsistency with page ranges, e.g. 163–65 vs 290–291, where the second number is sometimes given in short, and sometimes not

Fixed outliers. Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things like Guild of Carillonneurs in North America and Encyclopaedia Britannica should probably continue to be italicized in the sfn refs

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

retrieval date missing for ref 86 Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

Satisfied this undoubtably meets the GA criteria. The next step would be setting up a WP:PR or asking another person to give it a once over before FAC. Thanks for your attentiveness, and apologies on my occasionally slow responses; things have been a bit chaotic IRL! Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]