Talk:Mellotron/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
Done
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
- Gosh, thankyou. Given that 18 months ago editors were getting blocked for edit warring on the article, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. Thanks --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Netherlands license) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:
I think the layout needs to be fixed.
- Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading (WP:BETTER).
- Fix the Competitors section. The paragraph is too short.
- As you can see from the lengthy archives on the talk page, the section was longer but 221.160.109.38 (talk · contribs) objected to its factual accuracy based on the sources I have and so I removed it pending better sources, which never turned up. I am loathe to expand a section for sake of expanding without some good quality reliable sources. An alternative is we just chop this section out. What would you advise? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I confess I'm not quite sure. You're right but I think it should not be removed. So let's leave it as it is. Thanks! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- As you can see from the lengthy archives on the talk page, the section was longer but 221.160.109.38 (talk · contribs) objected to its factual accuracy based on the sources I have and so I removed it pending better sources, which never turned up. I am loathe to expand a section for sake of expanding without some good quality reliable sources. An alternative is we just chop this section out. What would you advise? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"It evolved from the earlier Chamberlin, a similar instrument, but could be mass-produced more effectively." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow?)
- Reworded and cut down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"The instrument works by pulling a section of magnetic tape across a head when a key is pressed, and provides a mechanism to select different sounds." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow? For example: When a key is pressed, a section of magnetic tape is pulled across a head … )
- Reworded and cut down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"The bandleader Eric Robinson and television personality David Nixon were heavily involved in the instrument's original publicity."
(definite article needed before "television personality"?)
- I would have thought "television personality" is an adjective, so the definitive article is not appropriate. Can you clarify as to what your intent is? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. I misjudged it. Apologies. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would have thought "television personality" is an adjective, so the definitive article is not appropriate. Can you clarify as to what your intent is? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"The Mellotron's popularity greatly increased following its prominent use by The Beatles and by subsequent groups including The Moody Blues and King Crimson, as well as being a notable instrument in progressive rock generally." (Can you rephrase it? The part "as well as being a notable instrument in progressive rock generally" doesn’t seem to fit in.)
- Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"The instrument's popularity waned, however, due to the introduction of polyphonic synthesizers and samplers in the 1980s, , and production ceased in 1986." (Can you rephrase it? or break into simpler sentences? For example: Despite a number of high profile uses from Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and XTC, the popularity of the instrument waned after the introduction of polyphonic synthesizers and samplers in the 1980s. As a result, the production ceased in 1986.)
- Copyedit to cut down on the word count. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"The Mellotron has a similar behaviour to a sampler, but generates its sound via audio tape." (or "The Mellotron has a behaviour similar to a sampler, but generates its sound via an audio tape."?)
- I'm not really keen on that - it's more words. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"One note of the frequently used string sounds reportedly contains the sound of a chair being scraped in the background." (Why reportedly?)
- Because that's what the source says! I've specifically attributed it to the author Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the sentence "While tapes were designed to last years, continual movement of the instrument, and transfer between cold storage rooms and hot lighting on stage could cause the tapes to stretch and stick on the capstan." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
- Cut down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"Robert Fripp infamously stated that "Tuning a Mellotron doesn't"." (Is it correct? I’m not sure what’s infamous in the quote?)
- I've cut out "infamous" but the quotation is just as Fripp said it and a search for it returns numerous hits. This source said he famously said it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"The earlier 1960s MK II units", "backing tracks on the Mk II's left hand", "the MKII, was released the following year" (consistency issue: Which one of "Mk II" is correct? Or it doesn’t matter?)
- Consistency is definitely important. Sources are wildly inconsistent (an official manual from Streetly Electronics mentions no model, book sources vary between "MkII", "MKII" and "Mark II". Nick Awde and Andy "Planet Mellotron" Thompson use "MkII", so I am going with that. However, to be seriously confusing, models from "Mark V" upwards are spelled out in full. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Ritchie333, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ritchie333, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)