Talk:Farfisa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 15:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article review may take a few days. Here is something to start things going forward.

(1) The phrase in the lead section "expensive Italian labour allowed Farfisa to sell their products cheaper", looks like it really means to say "inexpensive Italian labour...".

(2) Both the lead section and main body don't really give any details of where the company has gone financially in the 21st century, are they doing well, is the company publicly owned, privately owned, traded on the stock market, etc.

(3) Any law suits or patent disputes with other companies?

(4) Should any mention be made with discussion of who became the leaders for comparable products after they stopped being competitive for synthesizers, etc?

That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been tinkering with the article for years, a couple of days for review is fine. Some follow-up comments:

(1) Oh yeah, that's what happens when you rewrite the lead at the last minute, with the existing article on one monitor and the edit window on another, so fixed.

(2) - (4) The short answer is "I can't find any sources". The longer answer is the due weight of sources is predominantly towards the musical instruments. So, anything about the intercoms currently manufactured can't really be anything more than a sentence or two, otherwise I think it would break the "focused" part of the GA criteria. I have not seen any mention of legal action anywhere in the main sources I've used (organ terminology has been in the public domain for centuries, and the concepts of transistor oscillators can't be patented). And there's no obvious source that links dominant early 80s synthesizers like the Yamaha DX7 to Farfisa, which had become progressively commercially unsuccessful over the previous ten years, so I think to do so would be original research. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying comments. You have more experience at editing on Wikipedia and I will ask if you about the differences that Wikipedia applies to articles about Music instrument companies on the one hand, and about Music instrument company products on the other hand. When I read the articles, for example, for Gibson the company in Gibson (guitar company) and then compare it to the article for one of their product lines such as the Les Paul in Gibson Les Paul, then the two articles look rather different. In this case of Farfisa, it seems to me after reading the article two times now, that the article looks closer to what a product description article looks like at Wikipedia rather than the description of a Music instrument company itself. I am fine with reviewing your article as either the one or the other and will ask you to tell me which form of this review you would prefer. Two-thirds of the current version of this Farfisa article seems to be product descriptions and not dealing with the company itself. If the literature about the company is not available and the description of the company itself is lacking (as you state in your 2-4 comments above) then maybe this article would look better as a Music products article, such as the Gibson Les Paul article.

My review comments can be formed for either version of this article, though my comment themselves will be quite different if this is a Music company article as opposed to a Music instruments article. I hope that is clear, since you've put a lot of time into putting this article together for Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fundamental difference is that Gibson Les Paul (and Gibson SG, Gibson Thunderbird, Gibson Flying V etc etc) is a much better-known (and hence better-sourced) company, where the instrument articles could reasonably be considered to be spin-offs of the parent article. Hypothetically, if the Farfisa Compact Duo was significant enough in its own right to warrant a separate and detailed article, then you'd see a similar pattern. As it is, notability and sourcing rests primarily on the combo organs manufactured in the 1960s - Classic Keys even says as a footnote that everything Farfisa did after the 70s is of no particular interest to the reader. So, I would effectively treat it as a musical instrument (or series of instruments) articles, with only a cursory footnote as to the company itself, which is where the current balance lies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good focus to take, maybe it is more of a "Farfisa musical instruments" article. I'm starting the review comments in the next section. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review section comments

(1) Lead section: It might be worthwhile giving the full name of the company here. I've discovered that if you search the full name of the company then you do get a lot of web hits for different articles which do not come up otherwise. For example, this article by one of its longtime employees [1].

(2) Your opening History section might be able to get at least some further details by looks at the Italian inter wiki article for this page. The Italian page also gives a pre-history section which is not present in the current English language version. Also, it has some interesting facts such as the original company opened with 400 employees making 1000 instrument per month, and some other info. It would actually be useful to hear about how the Hammond took over the market both in the history and for the different models covered in the next sections if some material could be found. Maybe some of the artists listed in the last sections are on record as stating that they switched from Farfisa to Hammond, etc.

(3) Compact series article section works I think in its current form. The next section on the Fast series is also in pretty good shape though it could specify which C octaves are covered in the 4 octave range. If it is C1 to C4 then this should be listed, if it is C2 to C5 then this should be listed.

(4) Other models look like they are fairly consistently covered. Any comparison with Hammond or other manufacturers make the reading of these sections more interesting and could be augmented to say a little more about competitor models when possible.

(5) Artists section is interesting and it would be nice if you could mention which specific models they were using in any particular year. For example, there are a number of vintage video on Youtube for Sam the Sham which show some of the organ and synthesizer solos which might let you identify the specific models in use. They might even be an anecdote or two in recalling the names of the songs being performed which were very original ("Hey there little red riding hood", etc). The Pink Floyd material for Dark Side might be expanded a little to note the very large success of this LP and its very large influence on music making in its time.

(6) Your reference list and bibliography is much better than the Italian version of this article, even though the Italian article does cover some information currently not in the English version of it. A machine translation of the Italian article might be useful to peruse, and if you need any parts translated then I might be able to assist.

Let me know when its ready to move forward to the next round of comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the company's full name to the lead.

The problem with the source given about the company history it says that Genesis and Procol Harum used a Farfisa, which is not correct. They have always used Hammond organs. So I'm not sure it's trustworthy. However, I found another source which gives some detailed background about Silvio Scandalli and the popularity of accordion manufacturing in 20th century Italy, so I've added that. I've also fleshed out a bit more about why bands migrated to the Hammond; I don't think it was anything more than fashion and contemporary tastes. Richard Wright stuck with the Farfisa for a few more years, but even he went over to the Hammond ultimately.

The sources don't give the exact range for a FAST organ, plus the exact notes are depending on what stops you have activated - a 16' stop will sound an octave below the same note on an 8'. I've added a few more reasons why groups switched to Hammond, but I don't think I can add a significant one - because of their components, a Hammond doesn't go out of tune, but a Farfisa can. No source gives both together and therefore I think it's original research to include it.

I've added a bit more about who played what model - Sam The Sham used a Combo Compact, Richard Wright used a Combo Compact, then a Compact Duo. I have talked about this elsewhere on the internet. While Dark Side was enormously popular, the Farfisa only pops up in a few places, such as the intro to "Time". The archetypical Farfisa piece for Pink Floyd is probably "Careful With That Axe, Eugene".

Part of the problem with information elsewhere on other Wikipedias that is not sourced is it's difficult to tell whether any of the information is correct, and also whether it's important to go in an article. As well as good articles requiring a good standard of sourcing, ensuring only sourced information is included helps keep a balance and focus on what is important. Otherwise, if you add too much technical information, it can turn into an article written from an enthusiast's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further responses

This is your sentence about the octave range which I responded to and which you gave a partial answer to above: "The Fast 2 has a four-octave keyboard (C to C) with a one-octave manual bass on the left." Normally with a quote like this, a reader who expect to be told which octaves are being specified not only for your 'C to C' comment but also for which "one-octave manual bass" it was, for example, was the bass octave starting at C-zero or at C-one?

There are one or two copy edits I did which you are free to take out or change if they don't work.

Nice that you added the full company name to the lead section.

The above comments I've just added are all optional, as is your final decision about the best title for the article once I conclude this review. Since you have read the Les Paul article, I think you understand my expressed concern that this current Farfisa article looks like it might have been called "Farfisa music instruments", and no one would object to it. The article looks more like a music instruments article than a corporation article, and I'll leave the final choice with you about what you decide is the name of the article which you want to go with. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Farfisa/GA1: There are some optional comments I have made directly above. In terms of the article itself, it is written with a respect for reliable sources and is considerably better than the Italian Interwiki version of this article. The opening photo could optionally have a more detailed caption to indicate which model is being presented, or maybe one of Farfisa's earliest models being highlighted could be appropriate for the opening history section. The artists section is well-written with good referencing and commentary. Article is promoted. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. There are some more things I'd like to research, such as the technical details of the note ranges as mentioned above, but I'm not sure where to find additional sources. Hopefully they'll turn up in due course. Considering the complaints about the quality of this article even a year ago, as mentioned at Talk:Farfisa#Problems with this article, just getting to the line of GA status is quite impressive. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]