Talk:Clarinet/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

This is a good article, but not yet a WP:GA. It is a wide-ranging, readable article; but the main problem, which has been brought up many times before, is lack of references, i.e WP:cite in-line citations. The article has certainly been improved over time, but it has a bit further to go in respect of adding in-line citations. Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the article section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last:

Characteristics
- Tone -

First paragraph - seems reasonable; however I think that it would be useful to explain "the style of clarinet". What is it?
Second paragraph - unreferenced.

- Range -

First paragraph - seems reasonable.
Second, third and fourth paragraphs - unreferenced.

Construction
- Materials -

First paragraph - only the first sentence is referenced.
Second paragraph - unreferenced.
Third paragraph - seems reasonable.
Fourth paragraph - unreferenced.

- Reed -

First and second paragraphs - seem reasonable.
Third paragraph - unreferenced.

- Components of a modern soprano clarinet -

I'll ignore (here) the first single-sentence note.

First paragraph - unreferenced.
Second paragraph - seems reasonable.
Third paragraph is referenced.
Fourth paragraph - seems reasonable.
Fifth and sixth paragraphs - unreferenced.
Seventh paragraph - only the first sentence is referenced.

Acoustics - seems reasonable.

History -
- Lineage -

First paragraph - unreferenced. The remainder appears to be adequately referenced.

Usage and repertoire
- Use of multiple clarinets -

In the first paragraph, is this correct ? ...[the clarinet] "this involves more keywork than is necessary on instruments which "overblow" at the octave — oboes, flutes, bassoons, and saxophones, for example, which need only twelve notes before overblowing.
- Yes, it's basically true as stated; more notes in a register means more keys are needed to play them. However, the double reeds—oboe, bassoon, and English horn—also have a lot of keywork, for purposes of intonation and fingering ease. Powers ^T 14:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephase the question (just in case). I read this sentence as saying the oboes, flutes, bassoons, and saxophones, for example, need only twelve notes before overblowing. I think (but I'm not certain, hence the question) that they need eight notes before overblowing; the Clarinet needs 12?Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on whether you're talking about half-steps or scale tones. An octave includes 8 scale tones (7 intervals), or 12 half-steps. The clarinet's register is 12 scale tones (11 intervals), or 19 half-steps. Powers ^T 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks.Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC) DonePyrotec (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the fifth paragraph the Der Rosenkavalier claim needs a citation.

- Classical music -

The final paragraph, giving examples of instument combinations needs citation(s).

- Concert bands - OK

- Jazz - OK

- Rock and pop - unreferenced.

- Other genres - I'm not to keen on these one-sentence paragraphs, but the main problem is lack of citations.

- Groups of clarinets - more citations needed.

Extended family of clarinets - more citations needed.

WP:lead -

This is intended to both provide an introduction to the article and provide a summary of the main points. Currently, it is quite a good introduction, but it could be improved as a summary. I would suggest that the final (short) paragraph be expanded to briefly summarise how the chalumeux was 'changed' into a clarinet by the addition of pads and keys/register keys; and then briefly summarise the use that is made of a clarinet(s), e.g. in pairs, groups, in jazz, etc.

If there are any questions or points that you wish to discuss, add them to this page, and I'll answer then here. Meanwhile, I'm putting this WP:GAN On Hold whilst the article is improved. Pyrotec (talk)Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed most of your concerns. Have I added enough references? Is there anything else that needs to be done? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very quick response. I'm not a musician and I can't play the Clarinet, but I learnt a lot from reviewing this article. I think I understand the Clarinet much better, so I'm going to pass this article; and I would love to be able to play Stranger on the Shore on a Clarinet, but it probably won't happen.Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting article, I learned a lot aout the Clarinet from reviewing this article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
A wide-ranging article.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding the article GA-status. It was already a good article at the start of this review, but not a Good Article, mostly do to an inadequate number of citations. Congratulations to the nominator, Nikkimarie, in correcting these deficiencies in a very short space of time.Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to Pyrotec for his review and for his help in improving the article. (Good luck with Stranger on the Shore!). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]