Talk:Taiko/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking this one, I need some resources to come in before I can give it a proper review. I have previously discussed some ideas for improvement on my talk page. This could take more than a week to assemble the required books and may need some sources to be added from RX. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news. They will not lend me some books; including one that was in the listing but apparently cannot be found. I will do the review with what I have. Should be done within 24 hours. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review time!

Lede: The "relatively recent" is ambiguous, since you can date this. Please do so. The line afterwards begins with "While Taiko have"... but dropping "While" results in a bit of awkward prose showing up and it being a run on sentence. The next paragraph reiterates kumi-daiko comment from above. And is a bit awkward. Also, "Today, kumi-daiko" isn't specific... pet peeve, but do with it as you wish. Paragraph three's opening can be stronger if you drop the "not only" and tighten up the prose a bit. Major omission is the types of drums and its construction from the lede.

History: Second sentence: "taiko came from the". Came is a weird word choice. Is Ame no Uzume's visage of an old woman relevant? Minor, but you decide. In "Use in Warfare" you want it to be "According to the Gunji Yoshu" instead of "According to one of the historical chronicles..." It reads better that way. For "traditional settings" Drop the "For instance" at the beginning of the second sentence. And drop "Taiko also appear" at the start of second paragraph. I'd move it up and combine it with the other paragraph. Some the next lines have redundant words. Like "Taiko were and continue to be used in the classical..." with the whole "were and continue" being unnecessary. And an extra "continue to do so" which follows two sentences later. "Kumi Daiko" as a section is even worse, "He was considered a master" - "was" as in not anymore? Possible issue with "incidentally" in the same paragraph, but the second paragraph's issues are even bigger. I'd open with "Oguchi's ensemble, Osuwa Daiko, incorporated..." instead.

The rest could use a bit of copy editing... but I haven't gone through everything in detail. A couple of "further reading" seem questionable to me. Like why, "Copyrights. Taiko.us, July 6, 2005. Accessed April 21, 2006." or "Deschênes, Bruno. Japanese Taiko Drums. December 4, 2004. Accessed April 9, 2006." which is a personal page. "Gojinjo Daiko: The History, the Tradition, the Spectacle. May 15, 2003. Accessed March 4, 2006." is 404 and is a personal essay it seems. Archive.org can probably get it back. "History of Osuwa Daiko". May 5, 2006. Accessed February 6, 2006." is a geocities... but is it an official site? "Whiteside, Wendy. "The Beat Goes On". Student Paper, Washington University of St. Luis, 2001." seems like a student paper and thus not a RS and is likely all but inaccessible. With so many "further reading" I wonder why their isn't more usage of the sources if you can incorporate them. Over all, its very good. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Lead should be taken care of; it's a little longer now, but I believe it works better. I've made all the suggested changes under History, except for "He was considered a master" - "was" as in not anymore?. The "was" is because Oguchi is dead. We can get around this by making this clear in the previous sentence so it looks like this:

Kumi-daiko was developed by the late Daihachi Oguchi in 1951. He is considered a master performer...

Let me know what you think. I've also removed many of the sources under further reading because they were either personal websites, group websites (which might be appropriate on articles about the group, but not about the instrument), or because they were not recoverable using archive.org. I'll look through the rest and do some additional copyediting tonight. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not use "the late" to precede the deceased's name. And I still believe that Michaelangelo and other painters are still "masters" regardless of the era. But that's me being nitpicky. Since the further reading is rather excessive, can you organize it by subject matter? And if you can, throw some more into the article as sources and expand whatever you want. And if you could, please cover some of the most notable drum makers for the subject and anything on the current technology for modernizing and getting the best sound from the drums would be helpful; as industry information on drums produced per year. Sorry to add more on you, but I just noticed it was missing. Though I'm fairly certain it meets the broad aspect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll buy that. I've changed it to "is." Further reading has been categorized, and I'll see if I can get any of these tonight and add them in. Asano is pretty easily the most recognized name in taiko manufacturing, but there is precious little discussion in sources of specific companies (other than that they exist) or their reputation. I've added another discussed in the Bender. As for modern practices, they're really not that "modern" in that the companies I've read about still use ropes / cords to tie down skin heads, and use wheels or dowels with a little elbow grease to tension them. It's (still) a lot of manual labor. "Getting the best sound" basically comes down to a matter of initial tensioning, materials used, and care, but I'm hesitant to go into detail on this per WP:NOTHOWTO. And besides, materials and tensioning are already discussed in the article. I've also added Asano's drum production numbers per year. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for "NOTHOWTO" there is a big difference between explaining how something is constructed or operated versus an instructional manual. But I understand. I like such details as the method of construction for instruments. Like the construction of tin cans and the can opener; the information can be called encyclopedic and beneficial if only to answer the "how" aspect instead of trying to come across as "how to make a taiko drum in 50 easy steps". Information about the trees used is helpful, about the tightening of the drum head and such are all insights into something that helps understand the drum itself. But its not a GA issue. I could likely end up passing this as it stands. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Was there anything else, or are you considering passing this? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. Just a few quick little things. This ref is 404ed.[1] Archive.org maybe? Three almost trivial issues with the links.[2]. I am rather concerned with the Haniwa with Drums image being up for deletion - as this is part of the criteria. I don't think I formerly need that resolved to pass it - but I am starting to itch for its passage as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, refs and wikilinks are fixed and the image has been removed from the article. All set? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yep, GA passed. An interesting read. Good work Jethro, sorry about the wait. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (And no problem about the wait. You know what they say about all good things.) Let me know if you ever need me to look over a GA. :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, just realized that could be interpreted "all good things come to an end"...eep!) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]