Talk:Charles Brenton Fisk

Future Sources

• https://www.thediapason.com/content/cover-feature-64
• https://laura-sewell-matter.com/tag/charles-fisk/

Carpimaps (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Brenton Fisk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 17:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Earwig reveals no issues.

• What makes The Cornerstone a reliable source? I see it's the newsletter of the Rice Historical Society; is that an academic group, or a group of local amateur historians?
• The lead is a little short for an article of this length.
• Spotchecks:
  • FN 28 cites "His organs was described to be of an eclectic nature, never sticking to only one style of organ building". This needs copyediting, but verified.
  • FN 14 cites "In tracker-action organs, the movement of the keys or pedals is linked mechanically to the valve, enabling air to flow through the organ pipes. Conversely, electro-pneumatic action organs have the valves and keys connected through electricity, without the use of mechanical trackers." The definition of electro-pneumatic organ isn't really given in the source, which only says "electric", doesn't use the term "electro-pneumatic", and says nothing about what the electricity is used for.
  • FN 16 cites "His first significant work was constructed in 1961: a two-manual fully mechanical-action organ (op. 35). It was built in Mount Calvary Episcopal Church, Baltimore, with the help of organ builder Dirk Flentrop. Flentrop advised on the design of tonal and mechanical components, while Fisk created the final design, voicing, and construction." The source has "... in 1961 he completed his first significant instrument, a two-manual fully mechanical-action organ at Mount Calvary Episcopal Church in Baltimore. At the insistence of organist Arthur Howes, the renowned Dutch organbuilder Dirk Flentrop was retained to advise on mechanical and tonal design, but Fisk was in charge of the final design and all construction and voicing". This is too close paraphrasing.
  • FN 38 cites "According to an interview in 1975, this lowered the cost of the organ by not having to build an entirely new casework." Verified.
  • FN 44 cites "In 1988, musicologist Mark Lindley published an analysis of the organ's tuning system. He found that the organ included tuning discrepancies, with various notes being few cents off from its historical counterparts." Needs copyediting, but verified.

That's two issues in five cites checked -- not enough to fail the article but I am going to have to do another spotcheck before I can promote -- a spotcheck has to come up clean, or very nearly so, for the article to pass. I would suggest you have a look through the article to convince yourself that it's ready for another spotcheck and let me know when I can try again.

The other immediate issue that I see is a need for copyeding. Two of the five spotchecks showed up issues:

• "His organs was described to be of an eclectic nature, never sticking to only one style of organ building." Presumably should be "were described", or perhaps just "were eclectic", or "were eclectic in design".
• "He found that the organ included tuning discrepancies, with various notes being few cents off from its historical counterparts". Should be something like "He found that there were discrepancies in the organ's tuning, with various notes being a few cents off from ..." and I think "historical counterparts" is vague. Lindley gives more details than you need, but the reader has to be told a little more than this to make sense of it.

Then from a skim through the article:

• "Rückpositiv is a smaller section of organ pipes that can be played separate from the larger main pipes": should be "separately", and shouldn't it be "A Rückpositiv is" rather than just "Rückpositiv is"?
• "The special pedals affect the lower register portion(Pedaal division) of the main keyboard(Great)". The parentheses should have a space before them, and what they mean is unclear. If this is something a reader knowledgeable about organs would understand, that's OK, but we should have either a link or a footnote to explain these.
• 'Organist George Bozeman wrote in The Tracker that it provided a "vivid, rich sound, and a crystalline clarity that reveals the color and texture of each stop".[35] Additionally, William Gatens wrote in American Record Guide that based on the recording, the organ sounded "thin and strident" and felt "dry" compared to Fisk's later works.' "Additionally" isn't appropriate; there's nothing in common between Bozeman's and Gatens' comments. Yo
• "This was the last organ Fisk have completed before succumbing to his longtime illness": ungrammatical.
• "After Fisk's death, C. B. Fisk, Inc. continues to manufactures organs to the present day." Ungrammatical.

These are just examples; the whole article needs a pass by a good copyeditor. I would suggest requesting a copyedit from the WP:GOCE. I can keep the review open for a while if you want; I think there's a fair bit of work to do but it could probably be done in the confines of a GA review. However, I'd recommend instead that I fail the nomination, which would mean there's no time pressure on you to make the changes. When the article has been copyediting and you've checked that the sources accurately support the text, you can renominate it then. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I see that this article has more issues than I previously imagined. Copyediting is probably manageable within the time constraint but spot-checking might take longer. I would like this article failed so that this article can be edited stress-free. Again, thanks for the insightful feedback. Carpimaps (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

OK -- will do. Good luck with the article! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

Hello

I will be reviewing this for GARC. History6042 (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; All the sources are available through Wikipedia Library except for the Country Journal, which I got from WP:RX. Feel free to ask for quotations. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Descriptions

All the images have an acceptable copyright. They also all have captions. History6042 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You are pretty much the only recent editor to this page and anyone else editing has not disrupted the page. History6042 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a controversial topic and there seems to be no bias. History6042 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I will check the sources tomorrow if I have time. History6042 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice to hear. Though I think his unintentional involvement in Manhattan project marks a dark spot in its career--let me know if anything needs to be balanced! Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is balanced already. History6042 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Everything has an inline citation. So there is no WP:OR. History6042 (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean OR can still happen when there are inline citations via improper synthesis of facts, but I made sure that all analysis is attributed to a reliable source. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I ran Earwig and it only found some stuff copying this article. History6042 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I checked the first ten sources and all were from reliable places. History6042 (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I checked sources 1 through 10 and all of them cited what is said in the article correctly. History6042 (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am going to pass this, good job. History6042 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that after unknowingly working for the Manhattan Project, Charles Fisk quit physics and became an organbuilder?
• ALT1: ... that after discovering he worked for the Manhattan Project, Charles Fisk quit physics and became an organbuilder?

• Source: https://thegeorgiareview.com/posts/hell-and-reason/

• Reviewed:
• Comment: QPQ done Template:Did you know nominations/Qvadriga

Improved to Good Article status by Ca (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC).

• Article converted to GA status. All parts of the article are cited with no problems with copyright. The stated hook is also mentioned in the article as a separate section. Overall no problems and good to go. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)