Talk:United States Army Herald Trumpets/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Happy to take this up. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
No dablinks, no copyvio detected. Fairly well-written, only a few comments: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- History and mission
- Designated as the "official fanfare ensemble for the President of the United States" A natural question would be "by whom?"
- Uniform and equipment
- The Herald Trumpets use a combination of E-flat, B-flat mezzo-soprano, B-flat tenor Would be good to add some links, most people would be unfamiliar to these terms.
- The last para appears unsourced.
@LavaBaron: Please respond. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sainsf apologies for the delay, I had to retrieve an offline (book) source. I've added citations in the last paragraph. To your other two points - unfortunately we don't even have an article for a herald trump right now to which I can link (it is piped to trumpet) let alone B-flag mezzo-soprano herald trumpets. The U.S. Army website refers to it as the "official fanfare ensemble for the President of the United States" but not additional information is available; I would assume it is a self-designation. LavaBaron (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I just saw one of your GANs failed recently due to lack of broad coverage. This seems to be the case here as well. I have asked a question about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles, just to be sure I am not taking the wrong decision. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sainsf apologies for the delay, I had to retrieve an offline (book) source. I've added citations in the last paragraph. To your other two points - unfortunately we don't even have an article for a herald trump right now to which I can link (it is piped to trumpet) let alone B-flag mezzo-soprano herald trumpets. The U.S. Army website refers to it as the "official fanfare ensemble for the President of the United States" but not additional information is available; I would assume it is a self-designation. LavaBaron (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I saw Sainsf's comment at WT:GAN. The article currently has 3479 bytes of prose, which is low enough to be at risk of being merged with another article (in this case, United States Army Band, itself not too much longer). While the standalone notability guidelines are not part of the GA criteria, people have criticised ultra-short GAs as being a waste of time and making the GA process look foolish, so it's worth trying to beef up any article if you can. I've added a little bit more about the band's history with the US army, and am looking around for other sources. There is a book source here that talks about William Schuman using the Herald Trumpets specifically to "show off" some of his work - that would definitely be worth putting in the article.
- Another thing that might be worth putting in the article is a list of any notable alumi - I would be surprised if every single conductor or band leader was completely non-notable, though it's possible. The closest GA I've written to this topic is the University of Michigan Men's Glee Club, which contains about 10 alumi who have their own article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- We will have to wait till early July as LavaBaron is away. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think @LavaBaron: is away, he's having a, ummm, "robust debate" on WT:DYK right now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have intermittent online access at the moment. All in all, after considering the trending consensus vis a vis short articles of this type, I do not have a problem with this article being failed as GAN. I'll defer to your ultimate judgment, Sainsf. LavaBaron (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: Be sure of this, if you can't work on these issues for a week or two due to your business then I will have no problem failing it. I don't want to deny the nominator a chance. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sainsf - I think the suggestions for improvement are appropriate, however, I don't think the information exists in RS without engaging in OR. It was a stretch to even accumulate the information that is currently contained in the article. I could make another run at it but, honestly, I'm not sure it would produce different results. I think failing it may be the best option at this point, all things considered. (Though, perhaps, recategorization from "C" to "B" class might be in order?) LavaBaron (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: Be sure of this, if you can't work on these issues for a week or two due to your business then I will have no problem failing it. I don't want to deny the nominator a chance. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have intermittent online access at the moment. All in all, after considering the trending consensus vis a vis short articles of this type, I do not have a problem with this article being failed as GAN. I'll defer to your ultimate judgment, Sainsf. LavaBaron (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think @LavaBaron: is away, he's having a, ummm, "robust debate" on WT:DYK right now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I am going to fail it till we have more time to discuss things here. About the WikiProject ratings, I'm not sure if I should interfere with them... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)