Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roland TR-808/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2017 [1].

Roland TR-808[edit]

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the TR-808, a 1980s drum machine that became one of the most influential musical instruments in popular music. It became a GA earlier this year, and has been expanded since - for example, it now has audio samples. After writing several GA articles, I'd like to try my hand at a FA. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "Roland ended production in 1983 after semiconductor improvements made the faulty transistors that were an essential part of its design impossible to restock.": This implies to me that any of these machines that are still around are just museum pieces, not functioning ... correct? Past tense might be more appropriate than present tense in some places in your text. In "its popularity with hip hop in particular has made it one of the most influential inventions", "has made it" is present perfect, and I think the natural assumption of most readers from that would be that the machines are still around and functioning, which can't be right if "impossible to restock" is right. So please be clear about when you're talking about emulators or sampled sounds and when you're talking about the actual 808.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this. That's not the intended meaning of the sentence. There are indeed many functioning 808s in use around the world. The Development section says: "Kakehashi deliberately purchased faulty transistors to create the machine's distinctive "sizzling" sound.[8]" The machine used "bad" transistors, by design, because they create a particular sound. Kakehashi would go to transistor manufacturers and buy their broken transistors off them to use in the machine. When the manufacturers improved their manufacturing processes, they stopped producing these particular broken transistors, and so Roland could no longer build the 808s.
  • If you think the sentence is confusing, though, maybe we should rephrase it. It might not be necessary in the lead to mention that the components were faulty. We could simplify it to: "Roland ended production in 1983 after the transistors that were an essential part of its design became impossible to restock." What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better would be: "Roland ended production in 1983, but many functioning 808s are still in use around the world." - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, kinda - I think it's still appropriate to mention why they ceased production, so changed to "Having built approximately 12,000 units, Roland discontinued the 808 after its semiconductors became impossible to restock, but functioning units remain in use around the world". Popcornduff (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

A very interesting article that reads well and seems almost ready to me. Good audio files. I have a short list of questions and suggestions.
General
  • Alt text for the images would be good.
  • Added - never done that before! Is there a way to add them to the infobox images too? Popcornduff (talk)
Yes. It's a bit tricky and seems to vary from one kind of infobox to another. If you roll over the image now, you'll see the "alt=something". You can replace the word "something" with whatever you decide makes a good description for someone who can't see the image. Finetooth (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Popcornduff (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • If possible, please link to explanations for "individual level", "attack", and "decay", since in the context of drum machines these may not be familiar to many readers.
  • Can't find anything for "individual level", but linked to ADSR for the others. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. It occurs to me that if the comma after "level" goes away, the whole phrase makes sense as "Individual level tuning, attack, decay, and tone controls for some sounds". Is that what is meant, that all the controls are "individual level"? Maybe just "Individual tuning, decay and tone controls for some sounds" would be even more clear? Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It means you can set the level of the sounds individually. Level here means volume, but "level" is the term used in audio mixing. The comma is correct. Popcornduff (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Finetooth (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • ¶1 "...rather than having to use presets." – Link "presets" to an article that explains what they are? Or if that is not possible, use "preset patterns" as you do in the main text.
  • "Can't find anything for presets, so used "preset patterns". Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • ¶1 "engineer Don Lewis to demo its products" – "Demonstrate" rather than "demo"?
  • No, microprocessers were being used in Microcomposers. The Microcomposer was an instrument, not a microprocessor. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now. Finetooth (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶4 "Roland engineer Makoto Muri credited the design of the analog voice circuits to 'Mr. Nakamura' and the software to 'Mr. Matsuoka'." – Is it possible to find and add their first names?
  • Looked hard for this back when I was writing the article, but found nothing. Hence the quotes. We don't know who these guys are. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much, but I thought it was worth asking. Finetooth (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds and features
  • ¶1 "...TR stands for "Transistor Rhythm"" – More clear would be "the TR in TR-808 stands for 'Transistor Rhythm'."
  • ¶3 "...the bass drum sound is powerful enough to blow speakers." – Would it be possible to link to an explanation of what it means to "blow" a speaker?
  • Can't find anything. Any suggestions for rewording? Maybe just "damage speakers"? (I worry about this entire sentence to be honest - at enough volume, ANY sound is powerful enough to blow speakers. It's just the 808 bass drum was notorious for it, I suppose.) edit: On reflection I've just cut this. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Some of the titles in the citations use title case and others use sentence case. It would be good to be internally consistent. It doesn't matter which format the source uses.
  • Fixed. Happy to have an excuse to kill title case. Popcornduff (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to support on prose as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited a little; please revert if I make a mess of anything. I can only find one nitpick: the article says the 808 can generate 16 sounds but only 12 are listed. The article is in great shape; once that's fixed I will support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The "16 sounds" refers to some sounds that have more than one control; for example, there are three different toms. However, inspecting the source, I couldn't find the "16 sounds" claim, and I can't remember where I got it from, so it seems simplest to just remove it. Popcornduff (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well-written and interesting. Please bring more articles to FAC! And please consider reviewing some other candidates, if you haven't already, you write well and we always need more prose reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Although copyediting is the main thing I do on Wikipedia, I've always been hesitant to get my hands dirty with FAC and GA reviews, because I inevitably want to rewrite everything. Popcornduff (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I still have a TR505 in my possession somewhere -- fully digital/sampled sounds but similar controls -- so I couldn't really resist this...

  • I agree with Mike, very well written, I could hardly find anything to copyedit.
  • Structure is straightforward and although it's not heavily detailed I couldn't really find anything to complain about re. comprehensiveness -- you could perhaps mention the hi-mid-lo variations of the toms and congas, but that's about all I can think of for now.
  • I might hold off support till image and source reviews are in but well done in any case -- I look forward to more of these.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, but before the bot goes through, I'll register that I've checked changes since my last edits/comments and see no reason not to support -- more of these please! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Replaced with a public domain image. Popcornduff (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that the rationales need to be improved, do you think they're actually inappropriate for the page? Is hearing the 808 in context not useful for the reader? If you don't think they're a good fit then I won't bother fixing the rationales, so I'm asking first. Popcornduff (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that they do not significantly increase the understanding of the TR-808, and even if they did do we need 3 of them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, I added the Sexual Healing sample, but not the others. As that was the first hit to use the machine, and the one most readers are likely to recognise - like, "oh, so those intro sounds which I've heard a million times were made with this machine" - it's the one I'd campaign to keep, if we can keep any of them. I do think it helps contextualise the machine as something casual music listeners will have heard. That said, if you think they're not justified, I can live without them. Popcornduff (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see ALT text for all files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jo-Jo Eumerus and Popcornduff, have we found a solution to this yet? I'd like to get this wrapped up if we can. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping this rolling. I stated my position above, still waiting for further advice. Popcornduff (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if people will recognize Sexual Healing as being from Roland TR-808 then it might stay as "helps identifying the object". The others would have to go. I admit that I don't like pushing NFCC issues too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I've removed all the song samples but Sexual Healing, which do think illustrates the subject importantly. The pros and cons of using copyrighted material is one of my Wikipedia blind spots, so happy to go with whatever the consensus is. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes http://www.factmag.com/2014/01/16/roland-tr-808-beginners-guide-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-introduction/ a high quality reliable source?
    Fact is listed as a reliable source in WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. It's a mainstream British music website. Popcornduff (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria at FA is "high quality" so wee need to see that it doesn't just meet WP:RS but that it's of high quality for the subject. And, to be frank, the fact that a wikiproject lists a bunch of sources doesn't mean that all of those sources meet WP:RS all of the time, either. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea how to determine if this source is "high quality" and don't know what to suggest. If you think it's not sufficiently reliable then I'll retract the entire nomination because the article depends on it. Popcornduff (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches gives some pointers about how to show something is reliable. To show high quality, you're going to want to take it a step above those steps - finding high quality newspapers that use the source, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. This looks like a serious amount of work in something that is way out of my expertise, though. It might take me a while. Or I might fail entirely. 11:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    I searched guardian.co.uk to see if they used it as a source and found 47 articles that link to it -- for example, this, though I have to say when I clicked through some of the others I couldn't see where it was used. I also checked scholar.google.com for uses and found 90 papers that link to it; this is an example of a paper that uses it as a reference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 14 should be formatted like the other magazines, not with all the publication data in the link
  • What makes http://ethnomusicologyreview.ucla.edu/content/roland-tr-808-and-tale-marching-anteaters a high quality reliable source?
    • This one I'm not sure about. The Ethnomusicology Review site says Ethnomusicology Review is "the graduate student publication of the University of California Department of Ethnomusicology. It is edited by graduate students and refereed by a faculty advisory board". It says it's "extensively" peer-reviewed. It appears in the Directory of Open Access Journals, if that's anything to go by. To me it looks legit, but I'm out of my depth, and it looks like determining whether scholarly essays etc are reliable is a minefield that requires expertise I don't have. As the citation is only used for one claim, and not a super-important one, we could cut it if you think it's fishy. Popcornduff (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well we do accept (or have accepted in the past) PhD theses as FA-level references, but "graduate students" isn't that specific. It's probably okay but OTOH I don't think we'd lose too much by dropping it and the two snippets of info it supports-- happy to hear other opinions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://masahidesakuma.net/2012/04/roland-tr808.html is a deadlink
    • Looks like that died very recently. Replaced with archive.org link. Popcornduff (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • When using an archive.org link, we generally note that it's an archived link in the citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I started doing this, but decided the entire source was more trouble than it's worth - in Japanese and archived. Just removed it and the claim as it seems inessential (added by another editor FWIW). Popcornduff (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://flavorwire.com/433944/10-great-songs-built-around-the-808/2 a high quality reliable source?
    • Flavorwire is a well-known pop culture site. It's a professional publication, it has editorial oversight. Popcornduff (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't easily find the editorial policies/team on their site - do you have a link to those? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here: http://flavorwire.com/about-us But I've no idea how you use that to determine if the source is high-quality. Popcornduff (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • See the above article I linked - the fact they have an editorial team is good - one way to show high quality would be to show that the editorial team is known as journalists/worked at other places such as the New York Times, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            I looked in scholar.google.com and found hundreds of citations to Flavorwire; this is an example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations, as everything that is flagged is quotations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I wonder if Mike, Ian or Finetooth could help here with some of Ealdgyth's questions? I'm aware that this would be Popcornduff's first FA and we will need spot-checks anyway, but if anyone could lend a hand in establishing if these are all high quality sources, that might help a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to try to help; might be a day or two -- not sure if I'll have time tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, I've added a couple of notes above on Flavorwire and Factmag. I haven't done much source validation for media websites so I'm not sure if this is enough; let me know if more is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOoks fine... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks, guys. I'm learning a lot from watching this. Popcornduff (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries... it's a neat subject and a fine article - we just want to make sure its as good as possible. Trust me, you want all the bases covered before it hits the main page and you get the cranks/idiots/etc picking it apart... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: I just wanted to check how we were progressing with this one? I'm not sure if Mike or Ian had a chance to look, or if Ealdgyth has any further comments? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done, unless Ealdgyth has more concerns -- I believe the responses Ian and I provided resolved the source issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. There's still the issue of the sound files. I can remove them but I'd like to make sure they're not needed first. Popcornduff (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I see we are still missing alt text from the Marvin Gaye 1968 image, but it is not worth delaying promotion over that. I also notice that the spot checks were never performed, so I gave the sources a quick look myself and found no issues. So, this is good to go! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Whoops, I forgot to add alt text when I switched the Gaye photo, but I've fixed that now. Nice catch. Popcornduff (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks again to all the editors who helped get this article to FA. I learnt a lot. Popcornduff (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roland_TR-808/archive1&oldid=801807166"