Talk:Vibraphone/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 17:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article to help reduce the good article nomination backlog and to gain points in the WP:WIKICUP. Although quid pro quo is not required, if you fancy returning the favor, I have a list of articles in need of review here. — Ghost River 17:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver: I'd save you guys some time by simply quickfailing this. There are unfortunately many paragraphs that are completely unreferenced, tons of missing information available on google scholar, books, TWL, etc., and improvements needed in prose. I'll let you change the template.

@Wretchskull: You say there's "tons of missing information". Would you care to expound on that? Why? I Ask (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Why? I Ask: I do not want to discourage you, but this article isn't researched enough for GA. Apart from the issues I mentioned earlier, there are tons books and academic journals and magazines that aren't being used, and many of them can be found on google scholar, TWL, etc... Also, look at how many books there are on google books, which just shows that the article could be significantly expanded if you had the books. If you want a rough idea of how a quality instrument article looks like, take a look at the recently promoted Carillon. And by the way, as I've seen you comment on Aza24's talk page, there is no need of any in-depth reviewing if the article fails multiple criteria, especially sourcing. I'd be more than happy to help you out with your future GAN, but for now we need to focus on what should be improved.Wretchskull (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: I'm going to be honest, but your advice is not really helpful. It would be helpful if you were actually mention what specific sources could be used, as I have scoured JSTOR, Google Books, and even World Cat alike. Since your comment a couple days ago, I have added over 20 more sources, and refined the prose, so please take a look if you would. If you were to specifically mention what could be added, both in scope and in sourcing (Aza24 has been helpful in recommending a section about repertoire which I am currently working on), then I would be grateful. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Why? I Ask: The article is in much better shape now. Just a few more comments: I'd move all book sources to Bibliography and use shortened footnotes when citing each book. Also, regarding expansion and more sourcing, I think it is a good idea to look at The Wikipedia Library (TWL). Currently, there are some videos and films being cited, which I would be inclined in replacing them with book/journal sources (preferably also many of the websites cited). There are 2000+ results of peer-reviewed sources at TWL when searching "Vibraphone" that I would take a look at. If you do not have access to TWL, tell me and I'll add the sources. Wretchskull (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: Currently, I only move sources to "Bibliography" if they are used on the page more than once, as many other FA and GA articles do. And yes, I do have access to TWL, but many of the peer reviewed sources do not go into much depth about the vibraphone and usually just mention that the instrument was used in a particular piece. I was also careful to only add video sources that are of the utmost reliability (e.g., Vic Firth's video about restringing a keyboard instrument is both reliable and potentially useful for readers wanting to know more). For another video citation, not many articles go in depth about the use of the motor in the front ensemble, so I cited an interview with Iain Moyer (the current front ensemble arranger for the Boston Crusaders and a published professor) about the rare use of the motor in the marching arts instead. There isn't really a replacement source for that unless you cite individual manufacturer's models which definitely should be avoided. The only currently questionable source may be Deagan's film in the "History" section, but that piece of information is easily verified by the bevy of other sources in the section, so I'm not particularly worried. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a close look to what Wretchskull said, I am inclined to agree. There are several paragraphs with no citations (including the entire "Range" and "two-mallet style" sections, and I am also concerned about the amount of trivia at the bottom. I do not think it makes sense to include a full list of classical works with a fairly popular instrument, nor do I think one sentence is relevant enough for a "Use in film scores" section. Other sections need to be expanded, such as the specialized techniques, which don't give the reader a sense of what they involve. I'm going to be failing this for now based on those two comments. I have not taken a detailed look at the prose, as the lack of citations are enough to justify my failure without a holding period. Please feel free to resubmit once my larger points have been addressed. — Ghost River 19:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver: I've considered deleting the "Classical works" section, but have always stopped considering there is a section like it on many of the other percussion pages (timpani, glockenspiel, etc). If you think it really needs to be deleted, then it shall be done. References have been added for range (I thought it was an example of WP:BLUE), and bowing can easily be expanded. Citations for two mallets can easily be done. Anything else? Why? I Ask (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver: I have fixed all of the criteria you've mentioned. Please take a look and give me some insight as to what else can be done. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed