Talk:Serpent (instrument)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Marshelec (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 22:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to review this article over the next week.Marshelec (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is of a high standard. No issues found with spelling or grammar.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows manual of style guidance.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References and bibliography listings are provided in suitable sections
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are comprehensive in-line citations throughout. Sources are good. A sample check of readily accessible sources was satisfactory.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No evidence of original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The copyvio report returns nothing of concern
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers main aspects. No obvious gaps.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays on topic, and there is no excessive detail
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Content shows fair representation without bias
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Edit history shows the article is stable and free from edit wars etc
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged with appropriate copyright licenses
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are interesting, relevant, and with good captions
	7. Overall assessment.

Review comments

Lead

I am open to persuasion on this issue, but it might be clearer for readers to describe it in the first sentence as a wind instrument. Telling a reader that it is a brass instrument, and then telling them it is made of wood and leather is confusing (even though the article on brass instrument covers this (confusing) point. Another option is to add a sentence explaining the broad scope/classification of brass instruments.
I sympathise :) Organologists have even started using the word labrosone to mean anything sounded by vibrating ("buzzing") the lips on an aperture or mouthpiece (confusingly called "trumpets" in the Hornbostel–Sachs classification system, 423), rather than confuse everyone with the word "brass". Obvious confusions are saxophones, sarrusophones, and even flutes which are woodwind instruments made of brass, and serpents, cornetts, and the didgeridoo, which are brass instruments made of wood. It doesn't help that the brass instrument article is pretty woeful. Anyway, I'll have a think about this one. — Jon (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in the first sentence, the phrase (later with keys) breaks the flow, and does not seem essential here. This point is covered in the body.
the wikilink for wood seems unnecessary. It is an everyday word understood by most readers in context, as per MOS:OL
however, it would be useful to link bass to Bass (instrument)
an additional sentence or two is needed about repertoire and recent revival

Construction

The original serpent is typically built in 8′ C from hardwood, .. I suggest "was built". Also, it is a bit confusing for readers to introduce the 8′ C in this way. I suggest a separate phrase or sentence about the fundamental pitch of the instrument (or whatever is the most appropriate term), leaving this sentence about construction with just the materials.
Each piece is made by gluing two hollowed halves together to make a tubular segment, which are then bonded together and bound with an outer covering of leather. This would be better either split into two sentences, or reworked as "Each piece is made by gluing two hollowed halves together to make a tubular segment, and the multiple segments are then joined together and bound with an outer covering of leather"
..improve the serpent's inherent intonation problems. This begs the question: "what problems ?"
I am open to persuasion, but I think that the section Contrabass serpent would be better relocated under the History heading. (This would also overcome the problem of serpent ordinaire being introduced here, when it is currently defined in the History section below.)

History

..sprang up in the early 19th century. suggest ".. were developed in the early 19th century" (I have visions of serpents springing up to attack passersby !!)
..the layouts of these instruments more resemble that of a bassoon, delete "more"
..a short U-shaped butte joint what is a butte joint ? Should this be just "butt" ?
link Prussian to Prussia (I don't think Prussia is covered by MOS:OL)
..and wrote for it in several of his works would be better as: "and wrote for the instrument in several of his works"
..one of the last innovations of the upright serpent would be better as: "..one of the last incarnations of the upright serpent"
..which helped to propel interest and their more widespread availability. would be better as: "..which helped to raise interest in these instruments and increase their availability"

Repertoire

The content of this section is currently about relatively recent repertoire. The section title could perhaps be "Modern repertoire" or similar (unless some additional content is added about early repertoire).

Soprano and tenor versions ?

One of the cited sources appears to indicate that Soprano and tenor versions of the serpent are available ? [1]. Is this worth a brief mention ? ✔
Added a § Sizes under § Construction

Closing

@Jonathanischoice: - only a couple of small points left to go :) Marshelec (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a go at expanding on the early repertoire, depending on what is out there, and possibly a little bit about playing technique, since there are some public domain 19th C. serpent method books and fingering charts which might be good to include. The small soprano/alto "wyrm" serpent certainly exists, but is hardly more than a novelty; but then, so is the anaconda. Perhaps a "sizes" section. This all might take a day or two. Cheers — Jon (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...or perhaps it just takes an afternoon re-reading some books :) try now. — Jon (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.