Talk:Hammond organ/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EddieHugh (talk · contribs) 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this on over the next few days. Do you mind if I do some copy editing as I go, or would you prefer just comments?

I generally comment on things when I GA review, but I don't mind you boldly copyediting stuff. I assume if issues are major or controversial, you'll stop and ask. Clusternote and Binksternet might also be around to assist, as they've helped with the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I mean just a few words and punctuation. EddieHugh (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Criterion 4. Neutral. No problem.

Criterion 5. Stable. No problem.

Before starting on criterion 1, I've looked at the overall structure. It is: Background (history to 1966); Tone generation (how they work); Models; Hammond-Suzuki (history, 1970s to present, plus more models); Speakers; Controls (how they work); Clones and emulation devices; and Notable users. This seems halfway between a chronological structure (history of original Co and its models; then Hammond-Suzuki and its models) and an instrument-based structure (describe models and how they work). What do you think of putting all the history bits together first, then all the 'how they work' bits together (Tone before Controls), followed by Models, Speakers, Clones and emulation devices, Notable users? The H-S models could go in Models, or after Speakers. You're closer to it, so it's up to you. EddieHugh (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm pretty ambivalent about the order of sections to be honest - a lot of people have had a hand in this article over the years and copyediting into a manageable shape was difficult; I've rearranged the order a few times myself. You've probably noticed some previous sections have been parked on the talk page due to being redundant and / or insufficiently sourced.

As it currently stands, I've put "Tone generation" up front before the lead was finished. Now, the lead says what a tonewheel is, so when "Models" talks about "Tonewheel organs", the reader understands what's going on. I would go with something like:

1. Company history (background, tonewheel organs, transistor organs, Hammond-Suzuki). "Models" describes major releases in chronological order, although there is overlap between Consoles and Spinets, I think that's an acceptable balance as they were produce concurrently for different markets - plus the two key book sources I used also do this.
2. Features (controls, speakers) - most of the features, such as "Drawbars" apply equally to a Hammond A (1935) and a Hammond SK1 (2011) so I think this works.
3. Tone generation - technical stuff that I think is more for enthusiasts more than the layman, so best to get the interesting stuff up front before this
4. Clones (they're not actually anything to do with Hammond, but Hammond books talk about them so they have a place in the article)
5. Notable users

"Gallery" I think is redundant - we set up List of Hammond organs as a content split which is where this stuff now goes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

ok. Try that structure, then I'll look again. Scrapping Gallery is fine. EddieHugh (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Criterion 6. Media. a. Image copyright looks fine. b. If "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images), then some can go, as they add very little. There are a lot of the original organs, and I struggle to see much difference or content in the text to justify having all of them. Hammond XK-3c shows only part of the back of the case. Having two in Clones doesn't obviously add more than having one would. EddieHugh (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a copyedit on the article. The structure of the article is now as discussed above, and I've rationalised the images. I've also improved quite a few of the captions, so they now specifically indicate why the image is relevant to the article, as opposed to just "here's a picture of my Hammond". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

All good. I'll try to check the audio later. EddieHugh (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Criterion 1. Well-written. Mostly good, but some assumes technical or specialist knowledge. These terms can be left in, but a brief description at first mention will help. e.g., "The telharmonium used tonewheels to generate musical sounds as electrical signals by additive synthesis" could be "The Telharmonium used spinning metal disks called tonewheels to generate electrical signals, which could be combined in a process known as additive synthesis and converted into musical sounds" (or something more accurate/better).

I've rewritten this using a completely different source. There's a difficult balance between being concise and being easy to understand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Other terms (in order of appearance):

• "dynamic level" (rephrase, as it's unclear); - can't find this, did I accidentally copyedit it away?

looks like it!

• "pedalboard" (first mention – state what it is); - done
• "manuals" - done
• "expression pedal" - done
• "drawbars" (all as "pedalboard"); - done
• "scanner delay-line vibrato system" (what's that?); - replaced with vibrato and added a brief description of what vibrato is available and what it basically does
• "harmonic percussion circuit" (and this?); replaced with harmonic percussion feature and also now defined in its own section earlier
• "tone pistons" (?); - mistake, should read toe pistons

ok, but what are they?

I've added a definition, though it's curious my sources seem to just assume you know what one is

• "extra brilliance" (sound quality or something else?); This was a mistake transcribing the source, it said the controls "added extra brilliance" but it was not an actual feature
• "treated and untreated vibrato signals" (treated in what way?); - No idea, this is a verbatim transcription from the source. Changed to "various vibrato signals"
• "not as sophisticated as the other organs, and used a simple potentiometer design. This was later replaced with a light-dependent resistor system" (simplify – too much detail); - replaced with cheaper

it's now an incomplete sentence.

Fixed

• "Unlike all the earlier Hammond organs, the T series used all-solid-state, transistor circuitry for amplification" (what did the earlier ones use?); added note on tube amplification
• "rhythm machine" (what did that do?); - replaced with drum machine and wikilinked (Hammond always called it a "rhythm machine" but it's identical to what the layman would know as a drum machine)
• "Leslie speaker" (in Transistor section – first mention outside lead);
• "the main tonewheel motor can synchronize with the tonewheel" (the tonewheels aren't driven by the tonewheel motor? What has to be synchronized?); - this didn't make sense - reworded
• "3rd ledger line above the bass clef" (in simple language... maybe relate to middle C?); - irrelevant - removed'
• "32', 16', 8', and 4' voices for the pedal" (is that the expression pedal? What is "32'", etc.? "'" is not transparent); - removed
• "in Hammond's "Solovox"" (what's that?); - irrelevant - removed
• "component waveform ratios" (also in lead; this is too technical); - replaced with "component sounds" and then "sound" thereafter
• "The 8' drawbar" ("the drawbar labeled "8'"?); - reworded
• "888000000 (16', 51/3', 8' all full out)" (understandable after a while, but could be clearer); - reworded
• "set of live drawbars" (live?); removed
• "transient" (define); remove
• " Inside the coil" (what coil? This is the first mention); - copy edited out
• "harmonic synthesis" (is that additive sythesis?); removed
• "The tonewheel illustrated has, comparatively speaking, many fine teeth, and would generate a relatively high frequency" (putting this in general terms would aid clarity; is it the number of teeth, their size, or a combination that creates the frequency?); irrelevant, only Hammond techs care about this, players just turn it on, something whirs round and notes come out!
• "all nine key contacts close" (what are "key contacts"?). Done

There are a lot here... maybe that's why I thought How they work might go before Models; amending them where they are will take care of most of the clarity issues.

And a couple of basic points: what happens when the player depresses a key, and what is the range of notes on a manual (the pedalboard typically going up to middle C is stated, but the lowest on the manual is not). EddieHugh (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've split this out into a list so I can tackle them one-by one. Some of them can be solved simply by wikilinks - for example, "manual" should wikilink to manual (music), "dynamic level" can be replaced with volume, and ledger line and bass clef can be wikilinked. Some of these issues have arisen by things being copyedited and subsequently removed from the original context / flow. None of them look particularly complex, though a couple I've just looked and and thought "huh?" so they might well get simplified / removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fine. It's not part of the GA requirements, but MoS Linking encourages simple explanations in addition to wikilinks for technical stuff. Even the simple "manual" will make some people think "handbook" rather than "keyboard" on first encounter. EddieHugh (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had a think, and the best way to tackle this is to move the "Features" / "Controls" section right up front, and copy edit so it starts by briefly explaining how you play a Hammond, and what's different about it compared to a piano or a synth. That should tackle a large proportion of these issues in one hit. I think the article, and indeed, several related ones like Wurlitzer electric piano and Mellotron have suffered from being written by fans to fans, as opposed to being written by serious writers to the layman. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In Notable users:

• "a bit noddy." Citation after quote, or probably cut, as "noddy" is obscure.
• "collaborated with Smith and Tony Monaco using the "New B-3"." Clarify if Smith collaborations were w/new B3.

I've redone both of these two subjects with different sources. You can find a bootleg copy of the "bit noddy quote" by doing a video search for "Jon Lord Marshall amp" which brings up a clip from the DVD where he gives an audio/visual demonstration of his setup, but it's not vitally important to include it. DeFrancesco's preferred Hammond seems to vary between sources, some say New B3, some say old B3, one says Native Instruments B4, and a couple bang on about his association with Diversi. I've replaced with a single source that just states he's notable for using one and added a quote about how he's positive about its future, which is a nice note to end the article on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave the rest of the article until the technical items above have been done. Thanks, EddieHugh (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The main things left to do on the technical items are now :

• Scanner-delay line vibrato needs a proper definition of what it is and what it does
• Leslie speaker is referenced in "Models", which currently sits earlier than "Speakers". Putting "Speakers" before models gives the same problem elsewhere in reverse, as it then talks about "Consoles" and "Spinets" before they've been defined
• The tone generation section wants rewriting Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's moving towards being much easier to understand. Follow-up comments are indented in the list above. The initial structure now follows that of the GA pipe organ, which is fine. By "what happens when the player depresses a key" I mean literally what happens? e.g. pipe organ has "When a key is depressed, the key action admits wind into a pipe." I can't find it in this article; in can probably go into the Tone generation rewrite. EddieHugh (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think all of the above issues are now resolved. The tonewheel generation section contains a bit more information on other features, and is basically where I've put technical information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lovely. I've put in "the G above middle C as the top note". Going through the rest...

• "fades out either quickly or slowly—a distinctive "plink" sound" (clarify when this plink occurs – at the end of the fade?)

removed

• "the patent office by Hanert" (who's that?)

It's John S Hanert, Hammond's chief technician, as mentioned in the first sentence of the lead (so per WP:SURNAME, "Hanert" is appropriate here)

• "48.5 inches (1,230 mm)", etc. (change mm to cm)
• "increased to 48.375 inches (1,228.7 mm)", etc. (too much detail)

Not sure about this. Millimetres is a generally accepted standard unit for small technical measurements - I personally use mm for shelves, skirting boards, doors etc. WP:UNIT

ok on mm. I wonder if anyone wants to know that one model was 24.7 mm higher than another; I'd be just as happy with "was increased slightly", but leave the numbers in if you prefer.

I've gone back through the original source and decided the measurements are more confusing than what's cited, so I've just taken this out and simply said the B case was deeper. That should suffice.

• "move the entire manufacturing operation from Chicago to Japan, and also viewed declining sales figures" (clarify that these points refer to Hammond, not Roland)

Done

• "combined with the closed switches" (what these are is unclear; closed in what sense?)

Clarified

• (I'm all for "unimaginable sonic chaos"...) EddieHugh (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Criterion 2. Verifiable. Looks all good. EddieHugh (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Criterion 3. Coverage. a. Fine. b. A balance exists between detail for the somewhat informed and simplicity for the newcomer.

Thanks for all of the above. One comment added above, indented.

• On lead: do you think the second sentence should be simplified as the main text was? Doing so could avoid putting readers off.

Yes, certainly. I've done this.

• Audio checked, although I can't listen to them on my set-up. Could you check that the heading and description for "C note" match the audio? The file info has "A C chord on a drawbar organ", not "C note". EddieHugh (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've checked them, I think they're in the appropriate places. "C note" is just that, one note, no Leslie, a good basic depiction of the basic organ sound.

I think that's pretty much all the issues tackled. The article's hopefully looking a lot better and more accessible than last week, which is exactly what a GA review is supposed to do. If there are any other issues, let me know and we can hopefully get this wrapped up soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The last thing is... the Vibrato and chorus section needs to mention chorus. EddieHugh (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Final comment

All criteria met, so now passed. Thanks for your patience and persistence, EddieHugh (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a good GA review - very reader focused, exactly what the project needs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)