Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taiko/archive2

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Taiko[edit]

Nominator(s) I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the set of Japanese percussion instruments called taiko. They have an ill-defined history in terms of their exact origins in addition to a mythological origin story. The usage of the instrument changed greatly through Japan's history, particularly just after WWII with the work of percussionist Daihachi Oguchi, who created a performance style involving several types of taiko and multiple players. This style is now very much the norm in taiko performance as popularized by groups such as Kodo. Construction of the drums and components of taiko performance are explored in-depth. The article also goes into detail about taiko outside of Japan (such as in Brazil) in addition to its role in social movements as explored in contemporary academic literature.

Curly Turkey, GermanJoe and others left very helpful feedback in the previous FAC discussion, which was closed as some matters required more thorough investigation. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I JethroBT has addressed all the issues I had in the last FAC and on the talk page, so I support this nom (though, as the nominator knows, if I had my 'druthers I'd have most of the kanji kicked out of the body). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg: since Japan does not have freedom of panorama for artistic works, you should explicitly indicate that the work itself is now PD. The tag you've currently got indicates that the artwork is fair-use, which I don't think is what you mean - rather it's the photo that is non-free. This is further confused by "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain" - if that is true, why is this fair use at all?\
    Done, with some issues. The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain Is that text automatically generated? I don't remember writing that myself. The photograph is definitely not under a free license, as you said, and is owned by the Tokyo National Museum. I'll be removing this line. I have indicated that the work itself is PD in both Japan and the U.S., but with the non-free tag, it's produced incompatibilities that I've been unable to resolve. Does it just need to be left this way? I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one possible solution, or you could explore alternative tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Uzume.jpg: if this photo was taken in Japan, again the licensing status of the artwork itself should be indicated
    Checking... Information on the artwork itself is not immediately available and requires a little digging... I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been unable to find any information on the statue itself in terms of its creator or the year it was built, so I think it's best to remove the photo for now. I've been unable to find a suitable, free replacement image that has the necessary information. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I suggest you examine the consistency of reference formatting before a source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Can you be more specific about the consistency of the referencing format? Should things like websites and news articles also use the sfn format, even if they are just cited once rather than multiple times across multiple pages? I don't have a good idea of what's expected here; my thinking was that books would be more suitable for sfn, but using sfn for web content and news would not serve any useful purpose beyond the normal ref tags. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of thumb is that similar sources should look similar. Under that rule, using sfn for books and another option for websites/news articles is fine. Problems occur when books and websites are not consistent with other books and websites. For example, some books include locations and others do not, or sometimes you include publisher for newspapers and other times not. There are also things that, while consistent, are errors: for example, Tokyo National Museum is a publisher not a work, and so should not be italicized.
I see, that makes sense. I'll tidy these up today. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: As I'm going through these, one thing I will note is that Template:Cite news recommends the following for the publisher line: Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher) This is the case for many news publications here, such as the Japan Times or NYT, so it makes sense that there is some inconsistency in this regard. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done. I've standardized a number of matters such as publisher info on books, full page numbers for journal articles, and designating magazines vs. journals in addition to removing the via=JSTOR parameter in citations given that I provided the identification number using jstor=. I've added these in for sources that I obtained using JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: In light of changes over the past month, could you undertake a source review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only a few minor points remaining:

  • "[Den] was also known for developing a communal living and training facility for Ondekoza on Sado Island in Japan, and had a reputation for its intensity and broad education programs in folklore and music." - Is "Den" the first or last name? Use last name (or the Japanese equivalent) throughout.
    Done. "Den Tagayasu" is actually a name the performer created for himself, and it appears that Den is the last name after some checking. Reliable sources like Taiko Boom refer to him as "Den," ([2]) so I'll adjust references to him as "Den" accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is the recipient of awards recognizing the cultural value of his work." - The sentence is a bit short, "awards" could use some qualifier (worldwide? which kind of awards? ...). Just a brief addition needed to fill the sentence.
    Done. It seemed easier just to provide what the awards were, specifically, so I did. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounding nitpicky, but fair-use rationale of File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg needs the "n.a." parameters filled (on FA-level):
  • "Commercial opportunities": check other non-free art images for example phrases.
  • "not replaceable": you should indicate, why this specific image is not replaceable with another image for the same encyclopedic purpose.
Done. @GermanJoe: All of your above comments have been addressed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images have been reviewed already, no need for duplication.
  • I'll leave a full source review to the experts (cleaned up a bit). GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support (confident, that a final source review will show only minor issues, quickly fixed) The article covers a broad topic with a lot of necessary detail, but stays accessible throughout with a clear and logical structure. Unavoidable Japanese and music terminology is put into context and supported with additional Wiki-links. Sources appear to be reliable (on a quick glance), content is thoroughly referenced. Very nice article on a difficult topic. GermanJoe (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support. Some great work here. The article is well-organized and easy to read, which is hard to do for a topic readers will know little about; and the prose is in good shape. I can't speak to comprehensiveness but all the topics I would expect to see are covered -- construction, performance, types, cultural history, usage both inside and outside Japan. This is featured quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues

I'll add comments here as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two. I know nothing about the topic so please excuse any misunderstandings.

  • "Some taiko, such as the kakko, bear similarity to instruments originating from India": surely this should be "bear similarities"? If you really want the singular, it would have to be "bear a similarity", though I think that would sound odd.
    @MikeChristie: Agreed; we might also consider the more simple phrasing, "Some taiko...are similar to instruments originating from India." What do you think? I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "archaeology" spelling is more usual on Wikipedia than "archeology"; both are used in U.S. English and I'd suggest switching unless you have a reason not to, since the latter looks very odd to non-U.S. eyes.
    See Curly Turkey's first comment here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Taiko/archive1#General. I'm used to spelling it the former way as well, even living in the U.S., but I'd rather keep consistent spellings. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly thought "archeology" was the only accepted American spelling. For the record, I'm not American, so take anything I have to say about AmEng with a grain of salt. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not something I would oppose over. I'm British myself but have lived in the U.S. for decades so my eye for these things is hopelessly corrupted. You might ask at WP:Wikiproject Archaeology to see if there's an agreed spelling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to drums, many groups use vocals, strings, and woodwind instruments for accompaniment": there's a touch of redundancy about "accompaniment" after "in addition". How about "Many groups use vocals, strings, and woodwind instruments in addition to the drums", or "Many groups accompany the drums with ..."?
    Good suggestions; I've implemented the second one. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Performers also lean toward and away from the drum by adjusting the degree of bend in their left knee": why "also"?
    Removed this unnecessary qualifier. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historical accounts from 558 CE": this makes it sounds as if there are multiple accounts from that year, which I suspect is not the case. Should this be something like "Historical accounts, of which the earliest date from 558 CE"?
    Agreed, I've changed the phrasing to your suggestions. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a MoS expert, but per this, I think the Japanese terms should be italicized where they occur in the prose.
    Yeah, I do see a few terms in plain text. I'll make a pass to fix these (e.g. Chū-daiko). As a note, the MOS notes that phrases that have common use in English and proper names do not require itals. Taiko and kata are some of these loanwords, and group names such as Ondekoza or Kodo are proper name examples in the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems a reasonable approach. Since the text is still changing a little I'll review this again once the other points are mostly dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've done another pass here, and I think the Japanese terms have been appropriately italicized. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two of these figures are depicted playing drums. One of them, a player wearing skins, is equipped with a barrel-shaped drum hung from his shoulder and uses a stick or tube to play the drum at hip height": how about "Two of these figures are depicted playing drums; one of them, wearing skins, is equipped with a barrel-shaped drum hung from his shoulder and uses a stick or tube to play the drum at hip height"? This avoids the parenthetical "a player", which to my ear confuses the subject of "uses a stick or tube".
    Yeah, that reads much clearer to me and have replaced it. Thanks. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historians state that her performance is considered to be the creation of taiko music": is "historians" right? Presumably Japanese music historians don't seriously make this claim.
    Not in actuality, but they do state this is the origin of the instrument according to Japanese folklore. I think we can specify this by stating, "...is considered to be the mythological creation of taiko music." I've implemented this change. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an improvement. A suggestion: I'm not a fan of using "state" in sentences like this, since I think there's usually a better phrasing to be found. How about "Historians regard her performance as the mythological creation of taiko music"? Or even "the creation myth of"? That's a little shorter too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the former of your suggestions and have replaced it there. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked; "regard" goes better with "as" than "to be". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of warfare repeats the statement about the drums being used to set the marching pace. You could eliminate the duplication by making "setting a marching pace" the third item in the introductory list, which would let you glide into the "six paces per beat" note.
    Good point, I've modified this sentence to transition into the six paces per beat note. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Folklore from the 16th century on the legendary 6th-century Emperor Keitai offers a story during his reign that he obtained a large drum from China": I think "during his reign" could be cut.
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Konparu (金春流) school of drumming, for example, contains 65 basic patterns in addition to 25 special patterns and are categorized in several classes": as written this means that the school of drumming is categorized in several classes, which I don't think is the intention.
    I've changed this so that the categorization refers to the mentioned patterns, not to the school. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taiko continue to be used in the classical tradition, gagaku": this makes it sound as though "gagaku" can be translated as "classical tradition", which seems wrong. Would this be better as "Taiko continue to be used in the classical gagaku tradition"?
    The ambiguity you mention about its definition might also be resolved by using an indefinite article: {{tq|Taiko continue to be used in a classical music tradition, gagaku, typically performed..." How does this sound? I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, better than my suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kodo is one of the most recognized and taiko groups both in Japan and worldwide": should be "most recognized taiko groups"?
    Hah, thanks. That was leftover from a previous phrasing of this sentence. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shime-daiko are constructed with the head attached via iron rings, which are then tightened with ropes, bolts, or turnbuckles to the drum body": is "tightened to the drum body" normal usage? Or should this be "... turnbuckles attached to the drum body"?
    Done, I've made your suggested correction here.
  • "Byō-uchi-daiko cannot be tuned, and their sizes are limited by the diameter of the tree they are made from": presumably the latter statement is no longer true if these taiko are now made from staves as well as single trees.
    Reviewing sources, they do continue to be carved out from whole logs these days, and not just historically. They are also stave constructed; the main difference appears to be in cost, particularly for larger drums. I've rewritten this section to reflect this. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning of the underlining in the table in the categorization section is not apparent; nor is the reason for separating some rows by lines, but not others.
    Among taiko, there are sub-types of some types, but not others. It seemed best to illustrate these using underlining within cells. This is explained sufficiently in the text. I'm not sure there is a good way to explain the underlining within the table itself without going into excessive text. That each row is separated by lines (even when some cells are empty) I think is necessary because, some drum categories have only a few types, whereas others have many. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I follow now. I think the smaller font for the subtypes is a good indicator; I'd suggest indenting those lines a little, and dropping the underlining. I also think a caption to the table might help: perhaps move the title to below the table, and add "Indentation indicates subtypes", or add the explanatory text in a smaller font below the title if you don't want a caption. If it's made clear enough, and if you think the indentation works, you might even remove the internal row lines, and move up the Okedō-daiko rows so there's no blank space. Treat each column like a list with sublists, in other words. The problem with the row lines is they imply the rows have some meaning, which they don't. (This comment also applies to the theatrical usage table.) I have a couple of additional comments now I understand the intention:
    • The paragraph starting "The typical byō-uchi-daiko" lists the chū-daiko as a type of nagadō-daiko, but doesn't mention the ko-daiko, and the hira-daiko is described as "the other type" of byō-uchi-daiko although the ō-daiko has not yet been mentioned; and when it is mentioned it's not specifically described as a type of nagadō-daiko, though I think it's clear it's a byō-uchi-daiko from the surrounding text.
    Fixed both of these issues so that they make sense with the table. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the sentence about the "largest drum in an ensemble" meaning of ō-daiko to follow the definition as a kind of nagadō-daiko, since in the context I think the reader would expect to see the definitions that way round. Please check I didn't screw up the citations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't access the Fujie book any longer, so just to play it safe, I added in another reference there to ensure that information is verified. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nagauta shime-daiko (長唄締め太鼓) constructed such that": missing "are"?
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason why the types of okedō-daiko are not described in the text? E.g. the only place in the article where "nebuta" appears is in the table.
    Yeah, I've decided to nix these. Other than mentions of them in text, I can find no coverage of these drums, so I don't think they are worth putting on the table at this point; they appear to be too specialized. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A general comment, not really for FAC: it sounds like there's a great deal of detail that is available, perhaps too much for this overall article. Could a future article be written on "Types of taiko", which could give more details on construction and categorization?
    There is a lot, but trying to make it coherent is quite difficult. Frankly, the whole categorization is weird because it's not an official, organized system. Writers mostly agree, but few writers have attempted to place taiko categorically, and a lot of it mentioned incidentally rather than as a part of how taiko are classified. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no obligation to do an article of course, but something to consider -- I find the data often organizes itself when you do the reading, and it would be a nice supplement to this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other note, reviewing my sources revealed that okedo-daiko are largely considered to be shime-daiko, so I've decided to remove the okedo category entirely and place it as an item under the shime category. Furthermore, I've added a "new" category of drums, tsuzumi, which required some additional text in this categorization section. These aren't really new, because I had just neglected to figure out where they belonged, construction-wise. All of that can be seen in this edit and a few subsequent ones. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categorization table gives five categories, but it seems that the first three columns are defined by construction method, and the last three by usage. For example, the kakko sounds like it might be regarded as an Okedō-daiko if it weren't used in gagaku. Is that the case? Would it be better to split the table in two? The mention in the text of uta-daiko, which are shime-daiko from a construction point of view, but uta-daiko based on use, makes it seem to me that this is really two tables, not one. Also, it seems from the discussion that there are further kinds of taiko not included such as the sumō-daiko and sairei-nagadō.
    I see what you are saying; I figured it was easier to put them all together rather than separate since they are all classification systems, but seeing as there is basically overlap, it may be best to separate these into two tables, side-by-side. I'll get this fixed up soon. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: OK, I've tried breaking this up into two tables, and have added a column for kabuki on the theatrical table after reviewing sources (most of the drums are the same as in Noh, with one addition). I've also made some other changes to tables' contents-- I don't think it's necessary to include the taiko that are basically different in name only on the construction table. The miya-daiko is a type of nagado-daiko, but their use is so specific and due weight-wise, they only merit a mention in the text, and not so much in the table. Same goes for the sairei-nagado and sumo-daiko. I had these in there earlier for the sake of comprehensiveness, but I think based on your read, it's more confusing than it should be, so I think these examples should be left out. Lastly, there is some overlap between the two tables. O-daiko appear on both of them, but it is the same instrument. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the division into two tables is a big improvement. A couple more comments:
    • Uta daiko are mentioned in the text as being used in Noh performance; shouldn't that be in the table?
    • This term and nagauta shime-daiko refer to the same drum; for simplicity, I've just referred to them this way in the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not every drum in the construction table is used in theatrical performance, but every drum used in theatrical performance is presumably constructed according to one of the three given methods. Any reason not to specify which form of drum each of the taiko is in the second table? In the text, of course; not in the table. You do this for some of the types, such as the miya-daiko, but not for all of them.
    • I think this has been addressed with the new table format; all of the drums in the theatrical table now appear in the construction table. I have specified what kind of construction the miya-daiko, sairei-nagado, and sumo-daiko are in text under the Categorization section. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it dadaiko or da-daiko?
    • It's both, but the term is not represented consistently between sources on the instrument or general music history in Japan. I've gone with dadaiko for consistency's sake. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with the construction table, I think every drum that has an entry should be mentioned in the text; at least a couple (e.g. furi-tsuzumi) are not.
    • I've removed the furi-tsuzumi because there's not enough information for me to confirm it has general usage in gagaku performance. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ō-daiko means "large drum", but within any group, it describes the largest drum in an ensemble": I think "which refers to" might be better than "and describes".
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest drums of many taiko ensembles are the ō-daiko": based on the subsequent comment, this is always true, isn't it? Or does the term really have two meanings -- one as a specific type of drum of a certain size, and the other as a reference to the largest drum in an ensemble regardless of size?
    That first sentence is repetitive as you've said, so I've just removed it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the reasoning behind the choice of when to give the Japanese terms in what I assume is kanji? It's done for some words and not for others.
    See comments above and on the previous FAC from Curly Turkey on this-- there is a lot of Japanese on the page, and we have both been trying to reduce that where it makes sense to. Kanji are never provided for words that have articles on en.wiki or ja.wiki. They are only provided the first time a term appears in text, but not thereafter. If they are in the glossary at the bottom, they are also omitted. I've filled in one term, shin-daiko. There are still a few terms for which kanji are not available in RS (such as Kumaoji-daiko), and my Japanese is not good enough to reasonably know these terms. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "any drum that has a longer head and a shorter body": longer than what? and shorter than what? Than a chū-daiko? I think of heads as having width, not length; I take it "longer head" does refer to diameter?
    Yeah, this needs clarification. The heads of these drums are longer than its own body. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You now have "such that the drum head is longer than its body": how about "such that the drum head is broader than the body length", or "the drum head diameter is greater than the body length"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really a FAC comment, but looking at the example of the shime-daiko in the gallery, I don't see any iron rings, which I thought was a defining characteristic of these taiko based on the description in the article.
    I'll have a look around, but there are not that many good images of taiko (lots of performances, but not good images of the instruments). I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tsuri-daiko are suspended on a stand, and can either be played sitting down or standing up the drum is suspended on a stand": repetition of "suspended on a stand".
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while these are more functional on smaller drums for carrying": suggest "these are used for carrying the smaller drums, and serve..."
    Good suggestion. Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skin or head of taiko are generally made from cowhide": is head plural here? Shouldn't this be "skins or heads", or else "is generally made"?
    Good catch. I've fixed so the grammar agrees.  :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as for the hayashi-daiko": as far as I can see this term is not used or explained elsewhere, and doesn't appear in the categories section.
    I've removed it; it's not particularly material to the section anyway which should focus more on the process and less on types of drums. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why and how has widespread Internet use changed the manufacture of taiko?
    This was leftover from an unreliable source, and I cannot support this claim. I've changed this to be a more general lead into the rest of the text about companies and so forth. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term is used in martial arts in a similar way, such as the idea that the hara is the center of being": this doesn't quite work. Do you mean something like "The term is used in martial arts in a similar way: for example, both traditions include the idea that the hara is the center of being"?
    Agreed, this is a better phrasing; I've changed it accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the woodwinds used, bamboo flutes called shakuhachi and the shinobue sometimes accompany kumi-daiko groups": I think this needs rephrasing. As it stands it means "Among the woodwinds used, these two woodwinds are used". I think what's intended is something like "Among the woodwinds typically used in Japan, these two are used".
    Rereading this, I'm not sure that it's important to specify that the woodwinds are typical to Japan (they can read the articles to learn that). I've rephrased this to "Kumi-daiko performances can also feature woodwinds such as the shakuhachi and the shinobue". I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, ethnomusicologist William P. Malm stated that": I think that naming the expert inline in this way is mostly useful when it's a matter of opinion. Here I think you could relegate Malm to the footnote; there's nothing controversial about this statement, is there?
    I specify the author here because it's a very specific claim made about Japanese practitioners from an observational standpoint. It's not controversial per se, but I'd rather attribute it to Malm rather than make it seem like many authors have said as much. I rephrased this to make it a little more clear. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I think your rephrasing is a big improvement and deals with my concern. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These patterns are sometimes difficult to represent in Western musical notation, such as with the piece, Yatai-bayashi": what does "such as with the piece, Yatai-bayashi" mean? Does it mean that this is an example of a piece which contains patterns difficult to represent? I would have thought almost none of the taiko patterns would be easy to represent, given what is said in the article. If that's the intention, how about "Some taiko pieces, such as Yatai-bayashi, include patterns that are difficult to represent in Western musical notation"?
    Sure, that works well. I've made this change. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "taiko performance was substantially different across Japan": perhaps "varied substantially"?
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The creators of the text maintain": I think this should be "maintained", unless this is cited to a more recent statement than the 2001 text.
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eisa are a large variety of folk dances": I think this needs to be rephrased. Perhaps "A variety of folk dances originating on Okinawa, known collectively as eisa, often make use of the taiko."
    Yeah, that sounds much better. I've replaced it with your suggestion. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some performers use drums while dancing, and fall into two categories based on the type of drum used": is it really the performers who fall into two categories, or should it be the performances or style of performance?
    Ah, yeah, that's not quite right. I've adjusted this to make it clear that the categories deal with the style and less about the performers. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think File:Hachijo taiko 2007-03-21.jpg should be cropped so that the women and drum can be more clearly seen in the thumbnail; I assume it's framed as it is because of the mountain in the background, but for this article's purposes I don't think that's the best choice.
    Agreed, I've created a derivative image from the free image that better frames the performers. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hachijō-daiko tradition originated as early as 1849 based on a journal kept by an exile named Kakuso Kizan. ": you've just indicated that there are two traditions, so I think this should be "The older Hachijō-daiko tradition ...". I also think a bit of rephrasing would help avoid the reading that the tradition is based on the journal, which is how I first understood the sentence. Perhaps "according to a journal"?
    Hm, but doesn't it seem a little redundant to say that the first tradition is the older one. And the tradition is indeed based on what was found in the journal. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then I misunderstood -- I thought the sentence starting "The Hachijō-daiko tradition originated" was about one of the two styles within the tradition, but it's actually about the overall tradition. Looking back through it I think I was confused because you use the word "tradition" for both the overall tradition and for the individual styles within it. If you want to keep that word I think it needs a bit of care to make it clear what we're talking about each time it's used. Re the journal: are you saying that the journal documented existing practices which presumably predated the journal itself, and that the tradition is considered to date from the journal, not from the pre-existing practices? Maybe because documenting it allowed it to spread? It would seem more natural to say that the journal simply spread the tradition; the journal didn't originate it. Or am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I understand the confusion given my choice of words here. I've done some rephrasing in that the "tradition" refers to both of the individual "styles" I describe in that section. I've also addressed the concern with "originated" and instead have written that the tradition was first "documented" in the journal. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one estimate asserts that the tradition female performers outnumbered males at a ratio of three to one": should be "the tradition's"? And "by three to one" would be more concise.
    I think "the tradition" is an artifact leftover I forgot to remove, and I think it reads OK without it. I've rephrased the other bit by replacing it with your suggested "by three to one" I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One tradition of Hachijō-daiko is thought to extend directly from the style reported by Kizan" should that be "descend" rather than "extend"? And "one tradition" seems odd: earlier the article says there are two traditions, and we've read about one of them; shouldn't this be "the other tradition" or "the newer tradition"?
    Changed to descend. The second and third sections here both refer to the same tradition, the fourth section refers to the newer one. Maybe these should be combined? I've rephrased the "one tradition" to "The first tradition..." I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of Kumaoji-daiko says that one player provides the lower beat, and the other player is called the upper beat -- looks like a misphrasing.
    Fixed this one, thanks. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video of San Jose Taiko says that it shows a Hachijō-daiko style, but from the text I would have thought this could be more specifically described as Kumaoji-daiko or shin-daiko, since the caption discusses the upper beat and lower beat.
    This goes to your response to the above point; Hachijo-daiko is the overall tradition, and the two styles are Kumaoji-daiko and shin-daiko. There's not enough information about the video for me to know which is being performed (though I would guess it is the latter of the two.)
    Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other type of rhythm is called honbadaki is unique to shin-daiko": looks like an incompletely edited sentence.
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that has spread in use among groups": a bit wordy.
    Changed to "spread amongst groups." I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside of Japan": can we make this "Outside Japan"? I think this usage has its adherents but "Outside Japan" works just as well and won't annoy any grammar purists.
    Sure, I think we can drop that preposition. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taiko groups situated in Australia": cut "situated".
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brazilian groups have mixed in native and African drumming techniques with taiko performance": I don't think you need "in".
    Agreed, and I've decided "combined" is a better term to use here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discrimination of this class dates back to the Tokugawa period for those occupied in leatherwork and others who worked with animal skin and were effectively legal outcasts": should be "against this class"? I think the whole sentence needs rephrasing, or perhaps just repunctuating: what's the subject of "were", for example?
    I took another stab at this section, came up with: Those involved in the construction of taiko are usually considered part of the burakumin, a marginalized minority class in Japanese society, particularly those working with leather or animal skins. Discrimination of this class dates back to the Tokugawa period in terms of legal discrimination and treatment as social outcasts. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an improvement, but can we avoid having "discrimination" twice in such a short span? Maybe "prejudice" instead? I also tweaked "of" to "against" in the second sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and I've made the change to prejudice as suggested. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to have a medium to express the experiences as Japanese-Americans": "the experiences" doesn't seem right. Perhaps "their experiences"?
    Yeah-- I thought I had written that there earlier, but I guess not! Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "differently motivated: In Japan": I don't think this is one of the cases where you can follow a colon with an upper case letter, but I'm willing to be convinced if you think this is correct. Same comment for "...perform in one of two styles: Groups on the ...".
    The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Colons MoS says: Sometimes, more in American than British usage, the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence. I'm OK with leaving these uncapitalized even if they have a full sentence, and have changed the instances you've mentioned and one other. No colon has multiple sentences after it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which has impacted performance among many groups": it would be nice to avoid using "impact" as a verb. How about "which has had a strong impact on"? Or just "had an impact on" if that's all that's meant.
    Agreed, I've made this change. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "artistically and professionally representing taiko performance": I don't know what "representing" means here.
    Yeah, I don't really like this sentence, so I've rephrased it entirely: a group well known for making taiko performance internationally visible and for its artistic contributions to the tradition. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and had a reputation for its intensity": should be "which had"?
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other famous performers and groups beyond early practitioners have also been noted": If by "have been noted" you mean "are well known" then I think this is redundant with "famous". Can we just make this "Other famous ... include ..." and start naming them? And why "beyond early practitioners"?
    The first section there are basically the progenitors stemming from Daihachi Oguchi's time. The second section is essentially the next generation, but I think it's important to draw this distinction that there are newer practitioners who have achieved a certain status as performers. If it's OK, I'll just drop the "famous" from this sentence, which is indeed redundant. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see what you're getting at. How about "Performers and groups beyond the early practitioners have also been noted"? I don't think you need both "other" and "beyond". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that can probably go. I've removed the "other" as suggested. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the glossary table, do you need "category of" everywhere you have it? A couple of instances look like they might be OK to cut.
    Actually, the whole "category of" is not really necessary here, so I've dropped all instances of it from the glossary. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a pass through. A very enjoyable article; I saw Kodo perform many years ago and it was great to learn about the tradition they come from. Quite a lot of comments above, but most are minor, and I expect to be able to support once they're dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of minor points left above; if I get time tomorrow I'll pull out the remaining points and collapse the resolved ones. One additional point noticed on another read-through:

  • "After the skin has dried, tacks, called byō, are added to appropriate drums to secure it": something's wrong here -- should be "added to appropriate points on the drum" or something like that?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This phrasing is just to specify that tacks are only added to drums that require tacks, and not the other ones, that are tensioned using ropes or mechanical systems. Hence, "are added to appropriate drums". But I do get what you're saying, and I think adding in a definite article can resolve this ambiguity: ...are added to the appropriate drums to secure it. I've made this changed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All my comments have been addressed; I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

(spotchecks not done)

  • Dead links
  • Source for Hornbostel–Sachs classification? The glossary?
    • There actually is no source after looking around for one; I've provided this based on the Hornbostel–Sachs descriptions and the descriptions of the drums that are played, but this is probably synthesis. I think because this is such a wide range of drums that are categorically different, it might be better to get rid of it until a source classifying them can be found. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page numbers for FN31?
  • Per your reasoning above, why include publisher in FN51?
  • Museums are publishers not works - they shouldn't be italicized. Same with FN109, 197, 198, check for others
    • Thanks-- I've fixed these ones. With regard to 197 and 198 (now 193 & 194 since refs have changed), these use Template:Citeweb, and the name of the website is redundant with the publisher in these cases, so I've elected to just put these publishers in the website field. I can change this to something else if you think it'd be clearer. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you double-check details for FN135? The formatting is incorrect but I think the title might be as well
    • It's not only incorrect, but it's not citing the claim correctly, so I've replaced it with a citation to an existing source in the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare formatting of FN135 vs 142
    • Right, 142 would have been the correct way to format it. 135 has been replaced my comments in the above point. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include fellowship date in FN190 but not FN193?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • It's definitely not; I thought this article may have been published elsewhere, but it has not been. I've now replaced this with a suitable source. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate university presses
  • Since XLibris is a self-publishing company, what makes Nakamoto a high-quality reliable source? Same with Lulu and Petersen
    • I wasn't aware of this, thanks. Is there an a resource editors use to check whether a company is self-publishing? I've replaced these Nakmoto and Petersen citations using with appropriate RS. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got an error message on Terada 2001
  • How does Tusler meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Same with Vogel
    • First, both of these are doctoral dissertations. For Tusler, a Ph.D, and for Vogel, a D.M.A.. Tusler's thesis has been cited well in the applicable literature, such as in Bender's Taiko Boom ([3]), an important RS for this Wikipedia article, Post's Ethnomusicology ([4]), Lee's Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife ([5]), and has been cited independently by two other academic publications. Vogel's thesis, however, is not well-represented in the literature, and I have therefore replaced or dropped its citations from the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. Doctoral dissertations are a relatively new addition to SCHOLARSHIP, but your explanation is good. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Jethro, my apologies for not picking it up till now but I gather this would be your first FA if promoted? If so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we generally ask all of the newer nominators to jump through. Perhaps Nikki or one of the other reviewers above could look at that... :-)
    • Correct, this would be my first FA, and a spot check is certainly a reasonable practice. I'll ping Curly Turkey, GermanJoe, and Mike Christie as well if they are able to do this sooner. I'd recommend that if editors have access to Bender's Taiko Boom through Google Books or otherwise, to spot-check the article against it because it is one of more heavily used sources in this article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a fair few duplicate links in the article, which you can highlight by installing this script. Some of the dups may be justified by the length of the article and the space between the links, but pls review and lose what seems reasonable.
    • @Ian Rose: I've removed many of these duplicates, thanks for bringing them to my attention. There are still some left; many are confined to the "notable players" section at the bottom whose names and group affiliations are inevitably important in some of the other sections. Other links, such as for Yatai-bayashi, gagaku, kakko, and Tokyo Imperial Palace are sufficiently spaced in different sections of the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @I JethroBT: It looks like Nikkimaria's spot-checks revealed some issues indicating further spot-checks are needed. I've asked for more at WT:FAC but it wouldn't hurt to proactively get an experienced editor to perform some more checks. I'm afraid this will have to be archived if there is not any movement on that front. --Laser brain (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Thanks for giving this a little more time, Laser. I've sent some messages out to folks informing them of a need for a spot check of sources here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Drmies has said he's willing to do another spot-check tomorrow or Monday: [6]. Will that be OK? I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: Yep, no problem. --Laser brain (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me on Tuesday if necessary, then ... I have a pretty full Sunday and Monday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies, I'll have to leave it to Drmies ... I've just been looking over the article, and see that most of the sources are books-- I no longer have access to a good library. Good luck here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, wait, wait. Sandy, Laser_brain, Jethrobot, I am not sure what a "spotcheck" is or what anyone would like me to do. There's some 200 notes in the article and a long list of works cited--I found some problems already, but there is no way I can go through all of them anytime soon. Like I said, I'll be glad to help, but I'm somewhat limited timewise, esp. since the WMF cut my billable hours. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: It means you check some of the citations at random to see if they support the cited text, and to ensure they aren't closely paraphrased. It's SOP here these days. Usually a handful of checks are sufficient, but if problems are found that indicate wider issues, we ask for more checks. --Laser brain (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • "uses a stick or tube to play the drum at hip height" - FN 11 refers to the drum itself as a tube, played with a stick. Does FN10 say otherwise?
    • @Nikkimaria: Thanks, the tube detail was a misread on my part. Refs in FN10 refers to it as "a barrel drum beaten by a stick" and "a drum covered in skins on both sides and hung from his shoulder at hip height," so there is nothing about a tube being used to play the drum. I've fixed this in the body and image caption. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are also characterized by a high amount of tension on the drums heads, with a correspondingly high pitch relative to body size.[60]" - not seeing this in that source (plus the grammar error should be fixed)
    • I'm not sure what happened here, and I can't find a source to support the claim as it is phrased. I've subsequently replaced it with a different claim related to tensioning systems for taiko drums generally. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chū-daiko is a medium-sized nagadō-daiko ranging from 1.8 to 2.6 shaku (55 to 79 cm; 21 to 31 in),[67]" - not seeing this in that source, but I think perhaps you meant to cite this page? Even if so, your numbers are incorrect. Check that and other instances of FN67
    • Fixed these numbers, the source, and have replaced the other instances of FN67, which were also incorrect. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which the earliest date from 558 CE" - source says 588
  • "standing up.[2]" - not seeing this in that source
  • "They are decoratively painted with flames" - source mentions a "decorative object" but not flames.
    • I had to clarify this a bit; it's not the drum that is painted / decorated, but the apparatus that contains it. The Blades (1992) source does describe the flames on p. 125. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there - there's a bit more checking required here before this can pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Drmies[edit]

  • User:I JethroBT, what's with the Audry reference? Both the ISBN and Google point elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Bizarrely, WorldCat lists both the correct book and a book by Audry under the same 10-digit ISBN ([7]), so that probably had something to do with it. That said, I've filled in the correct author for this book that supports the claim. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking at the Lee reference, but that one is cited quite incorrectly. First of all, you have Lee listed as author and Nadeau as editor, but they are both editors. Second, you cite two pages: this is an article by Matthew J. Forss called "Folk Music", and should be cited as a work in an anthology (really, like an article in an encyclopedia, but that boils down to the same--we have a citation template for it), with author, article title, editors, book title, etc. Same with the other Lee reference. (I typically use the "chapter" field for such references, keeping the standard fields from the book citation template.) Drmies (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Freikorp[edit]

As per a request on my talk page, I am reviewing all web sources for both copyright violations/close paraphrasing and accuracy.

  • Ref 9: Am I missing something or does this not back up either statement it is used for regarding taiko?
    • @Freikorp: It does not support the uses, but it does support the earlier part of the sentence, Archeological evidence shows that taiko were used in Japan as early as the 6th century CE.
  • Ref 52(3): just says they are the "most well-known [taiko] group," it doesn't specifically say they well-known inside or outside of Japan. Not exactly a huge problem, just thought i'd mention it.
  • Ref 58: Just says "The tsuzumi - the hourglass drum - is used mainly in the Noh and Kabuki theatres." I don't see how this source backs up that the tsuzumi may not be considered taiko.
    • You're right, it's not explicitly stated in this source. I guess my initial read of it was that it wasn't clear that it may be considered a taiko, either. I've replaced this with a statement from the Blades (1992) source which reads:
      Tsuzumi, also meaning drum, is applied to braced drums, in particular to those in spool shape. It would seem that any drum might be called a taiko and also a tsuzimi, but that tsuzuimi usually suggests an hour-glass drum, and taiko a braced or nailed drum, barrel or cylindrical. A possible analogy would be our beels and chimes; either can be used for the same thing, but we would usually use bells for the handbell shape, and chimes for the tubes.
    • I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 67: a) not seeing the point of this inline citation here. Are you just backing up the names of the drums? And if so, how does this relate to offline Ref 68? Shouldn't the offline source back up the correct name of the drum if they are both talking about the same thing?
    Ref 67 (a) does is used to both verify the name of the drum and support the claim that it's a common type (nagado) of that broad category of drum (byo-uchi). Ref 68 does not support the commonality claim (because it doesn't discuss it), but does describe the drum's shape. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    b) Article reads "48 to 85 cm; 19 to 33 in", source reads a tad more specific "19 to 33.5 or 48.5 cm to 85 cm". I think rounding to nearest significant figure is fine, just thought i'd mention this in my attempt to be as thorough as possible.
    As a note, I think some of that rounding is done by Template:Convert, since the primary measurements for these instruments are done in shaku. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 75: Source states "Okedo have a lightweight slatted body with rope-tensioned heads." Article reads "[Okedo] are a type of shime-daiko that are stave-constructed using narrower strips of wood". I'm not seeing the connection here.
    Slatted refers to staves of wood that are long and narrow. That language feels more accessible for readers. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know; that makes sense now :). Freikorp (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 109: Just says the company is 400 years old, does not say they have "been producing taiko for over 400 years", though I think it's reasonable to make that assumption and accept the source.
  • Ref 66 and ref 188 link to the same article.
    This is tricky. Ref 66 refers to the main page you come to when you open the URL. Ref 188 refers to the "interview" tab which I cannot link to directly (or at least, I haven't found a way to do so). I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 194 and 195 don't appear to back up anything about Denver Taiko, only Soh Daiko.
    Added in a source from Konagaya to support the year the group was founded. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 207: perhaps you could rephrase "male-dominated art form", which is the exact term used in the source, though not a big deal.
    Thanks, I've rephrased this. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 217 a) "such as scrutiny by employers or in marriage arrangements". I can see scrutiny by employers in that source, but nothing about marriage. I may have missed something.
    From the article: In terms of important issues in deciding on a potential spouse, 20 percent answered, “Whether he/she is of buraku origin.” I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought I must have missed something, cheers. Freikorp (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
c) Source doesn't appear to back up that the Osaka Human Rights Museum exhibits the history of systematic discrimination against "other minorities"
I think the museum does address discrimination broadly, but for the article, it's only important to note that buraku discrimination is highlighted at the museum. I'll rephrase this part accordingly to focus on that. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 231 doesn't specifically say he is best known for his solo work, it is just a single article that appears to be (though doesn't explicitly state it is) on his solo work. Acceptable, but not ideal. Ref 233 backs this up though. I don't think you need ref 231.
    Thanks. I'll drop 231 then for this spot. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11, 25, 34, 49, 50, 52(1+2), 66, 67(c+d), 187, 188, 191, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 214, 217(b), 227, 233, 235: All good. Freikorp (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on online sources. As indicated above, my comprehensive check of online sources found a few things that needed addressing, but nothing that was disturbingly inaccurate or intentionally misleading etc. I feel confident that offline sources would also have no major issues. Freikorp (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I think need for additional spot checks have been satisfied by the above reviews. Is there anything else needed? I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: I would agree, thank you all. --Laser brain (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2015 (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/Taiko/archive2&oldid=1141922486"