Talk:Cimbasso/GA1

GA Review

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: Schminnte (talk · contribs) 17:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Jonathanischoice: my name is Schminnte and I will attempt to undertake this review. Musical instruments are one of my main areas of focus on Wikipedia, so I hope I can do this article justice. If you have any problems or questions with my review, please say: this is my first review, so I'm very much learning the ropes. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: my initial review points lie below. This is a nice shorter article about an unusual musical instrument: one of my favourite topics! Additionally (outside of the GA criteria), have you considered linking a video of the cimbasso being played? I found one of Mattis Cederberg on YouTube that might be appropriate. Please ping me when you reply to the points below. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: thanks for reviewing the article! I'm also learning the ropes, I've done one GA review for Music of The Lord of the Rings film series, and had one other article reviewed (contrabass trombone). I'm also interested in improving musical instrument articles, some of which are very much in need of work, so perhaps we can help each other out as we go :) I'll comment under points below as I go. — Jon (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Righto - just finished a bunch of editing, went down a Wikidata rabbit-hole in the process. Will wait for your comments before doing the last things (re-summarise the lede, maybe choose en_US?) Cheers, Jon (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: thank you for that. I have commented and passed all criteria apart from 1b, which needs lede expansion. I should have explained better: templates are not mandatory but will help if other people wish to contribute to the article or if it is taken to peer review. After you expand the lede, I will be prepared to pass this. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Done - I also sneaked in an expanded film soundtrack discussion a little in §Repertoire, added the en_US, and a couple of good example videos of cimbasso sound in §External links. Let me know if you need anything else, or we need more work on the lede.

Thanks, that's a lot better now. I will now pass this review: good job! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Some grammar needs looked at and there are some issues with linking:

   • The lede shows signs of WP:OVERLINK: the second links to tuba and contrabass trombone should be removed

   Done

   • I'll put this in here: why is there a see also section if the articles are all linked?

   Quite true, removed

   • Wikilink Italian opera as the first time was in the lede

   Fixed (assuming links in the lede don't "count")

   It doesn't per MOS:REPEATLINK (not GA but still}

   • same with tuba

   Fixed

   • contrabass trombone should be linked sooner (in "history")

   Fixed

   The second occurrence of the link in "construction" should now be removed

   Done

   • {{Ill}} link sv:Mattis Cederberg (in infobox and prose)

   Done

   • Who are Thein, Dehmel and Kunitz? Explanation would be nice

   Done

   • link "shank mouthpieces" to Mouthpiece (brass)

   I was about to, but mouthpiece is linked in the previous paragraph?

   My mistake. The odd way the images are displaying for me made me miss it

   • wikilink bell to Bell (wind instrument)

   Done

   • wikilink euphonium

   Done

   • I would remove the first and last commas in the lede.

   Done

   • I would the second sentence into a short sentence and a list

   Not sure what you mean by this - what would constitute the list?

   It seems odd to have The modern instrument first appeared as the trombone basso Verdi in the 1880s, has four to six rotary valves (or occasionally piston valves), a forward-facing bell, and a predominantly cylindrical bore, as the sentence adds a fact about its history to a list sentence (has four to six rotary valves...and a predominantly cylindrical bore) about its construction. I would put a full stop after 1880s, and say "... in the 1880s. It has four to six...".

   Ah, fair enough - done

   Grammar looks in good shape now, prepared to pass this criterion. Good job.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Lede seems a bit short and could do with expansion. It doesn't mention the basson russe or even any pieces the instrument is used in.

   *Material only be summarised in the lede, not introduced. Could the cited statements be moved elsewhere?

   Copied to §Construction, minor copy-edit in both places

   • Lede is missing date and engvar templates

   I've assumed you meant {{Use dmy dates}}, but what do you mean by the {{engvar}} template?

   You are right about the date format template. By ENGVAR I am referring to the MOS page: the appropriate templates would be {{Use British English}} and {{Use American English}} etc.

   Ok; so far it hasn't been an issue by avoiding spelling/grammar differences but I normally write in en_NZ or en_GB, so there might be some "isms" that slip through. What should we use?

   It's up to you, as you are the main contributor. It would be important to note here that if you want to use en GB, false titles should be removed.

   I'm happy to leave it out since it's not associated with a region, unless you think it is required for GA, in which case we should probably choose en_US?

   It's not required for GA, but standardisation will be looked for if you want to ever go to a higher standard review, like peer review. It's fine for GA though, so I would pass this point without it.

   Done

   *I would recommend linking to the commons category

   Done, added to new § External links

   External links should appear as a section at the bottom of the article, below bibliography

   Fixed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Reflist is present and formatted well. I would recommend moving these refs to the bibliography:

   • Myres 1986
   • Gourlay 2001
   • Meucci 2001
   • Kifer 2020

   I've moved them as suggested, except for Meucci 2001 which is a Grove Dictionary entry, which I've tended to treat as an inline source, partly for the convenience of the {{Cite Grove}} shortcut. Your thoughts?

   Given your explanation, I won't oppose this. I'll pass this point.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Sources used are from reliable secondary sources, and primary sources used in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. Dates, quotes and stats are directly cited.

   c. (OR):

   Spotchecks look good, however there seems to be some OR:

   • The mouthpiece receiver is usually sized to take tuba shank mouthpieces, or sometimes the smaller bass trombone shank size depending on the size of the instrument. This phrase is uncited. Could it be given a citation?

   As a cimbasso player I just know that they take tuba size mouthpieces and that some smaller models (e.g. Červený) take a bass trombone size, but as you might imagine (with literature being extremely thin) this is not something I've been able to find written down anywhere, other than inferring it from the catalogues/specs in the manufacturer ref. For now I've removed the bit about bass trombone shank since almost all modern instruments take tuba shank.

   • Some names in the "musicians" section are not supported by the text (Johnson, Smith, Miotti and Taylor). Could these be cited or removed?

   Done; noted Tommy, Doug and Jim in §Repertoire and performance with ref, removed others for now (unsourced British players; cimbasso is even rarer in the UK!).

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No plagiarism is detected using Earwig's or during spotchecks.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Article combines some smaller sections, which is to be expected from an article about a rarer and unusual instrument

   b. (focused):

   Article stays focussed on topic without going onto any tangents.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article balances viewpoints, not much else to unbalance an article about an obscure musical instrument

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars are visible in the recent article history

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All images are non-free and tagged appropriately

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are all suitable. There are however some minor problems with the captions:

   • Who is Stowasser? I would like to see a Wikilink if possible, if not please briefly explain who Stowasser is in the caption

   Amended caption and linked to Amati Kraslice, since Stowasser was one of the many Sudetenland firms nationalised into the Amati cooperative during the Czech communist revolution in the 1940s.

   • Wikilink Metropolitan Museum of Art. In the same caption, I think it would benefit from mentioning that this is an example of the basson russe

   Done (also used a white-background version of the image)

   Aside from that, the images are currently sandwiching the text. Could they be spaced out?

   I've placed the two images into a side gallery template, to eliminate sandwiching. I've also amended the caption with missing St Cecilia's Hall museum source.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.