Talk:Clarinet/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

This is a good article, but not yet a WP:GA. It is a wide-ranging, readable article; but the main problem, which has been brought up many times before, is lack of references, i.e WP:cite in-line citations. The article has certainly been improved over time, but it has a bit further to go in respect of adding in-line citations. Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the article section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last:

• Characteristics
  • Tone -

• First paragraph - seems reasonable; however I think that it would be useful to explain "the style of clarinet". What is it?
• Second paragraph - unreferenced.

• • Range -

• First paragraph - seems reasonable.
• Second, third and fourth paragraphs - unreferenced.

• Construction
  • Materials -

• First paragraph - only the first sentence is referenced.
• Second paragraph - unreferenced.
• Third paragraph - seems reasonable.
• Fourth paragraph - unreferenced.

• • Reed -

• First and second paragraphs - seem reasonable.
• Third paragraph - unreferenced.

• • Components of a modern soprano clarinet -

I'll ignore (here) the first single-sentence note.

• First paragraph - unreferenced.
• Second paragraph - seems reasonable.
• Third paragraph is referenced.
• Fourth paragraph - seems reasonable.
• Fifth and sixth paragraphs - unreferenced.
• Seventh paragraph - only the first sentence is referenced.

• Acoustics - seems reasonable.

• History -
  • Lineage -

• First paragraph - unreferenced. The remainder appears to be adequately referenced.

• Usage and repertoire
  • Use of multiple clarinets -

• In the first paragraph, is this correct ? ...[the clarinet] "this involves more keywork than is necessary on instruments which "overblow" at the octave — oboes, flutes, bassoons, and saxophones, for example, which need only twelve notes before overblowing.
  • Yes, it's basically true as stated; more notes in a register means more keys are needed to play them. However, the double reeds—oboe, bassoon, and English horn—also have a lot of keywork, for purposes of intonation and fingering ease. Powers ^T 14:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Let me rephase the question (just in case). I read this sentence as saying the oboes, flutes, bassoons, and saxophones, for example, need only twelve notes before overblowing. I think (but I'm not certain, hence the question) that they need eight notes before overblowing; the Clarinet needs 12?Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That depends on whether you're talking about half-steps or scale tones. An octave includes 8 scale tones (7 intervals), or 12 half-steps. The clarinet's register is 12 scale tones (11 intervals), or 19 half-steps. Powers ^T 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks.Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)  DonePyrotec (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the fifth paragraph the Der Rosenkavalier claim needs a citation.

• • Classical music -

• The final paragraph, giving examples of instument combinations needs citation(s).

• • Concert bands - OK

• • Jazz - OK

• • Rock and pop - unreferenced.

• • Other genres - I'm not to keen on these one-sentence paragraphs, but the main problem is lack of citations.

• • Groups of clarinets - more citations needed.

• Extended family of clarinets - more citations needed.

• WP:lead -

This is intended to both provide an introduction to the article and provide a summary of the main points. Currently, it is quite a good introduction, but it could be improved as a summary. I would suggest that the final (short) paragraph be expanded to briefly summarise how the chalumeux was 'changed' into a clarinet by the addition of pads and keys/register keys; and then briefly summarise the use that is made of a clarinet(s), e.g. in pairs, groups, in jazz, etc.

If there are any questions or points that you wish to discuss, add them to this page, and I'll answer then here. Meanwhile, I'm putting this WP:GAN On Hold whilst the article is improved. Pyrotec (talk)Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed most of your concerns. Have I added enough references? Is there anything else that needs to be done? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the very quick response. I'm not a musician and I can't play the Clarinet, but I learnt a lot from reviewing this article. I think I understand the Clarinet much better, so I'm going to pass this article; and I would love to be able to play Stranger on the Shore on a Clarinet, but it probably won't happen.Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting article, I learned a lot aout the Clarinet from reviewing this article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   A wide-ranging article.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding the article GA-status. It was already a good article at the start of this review, but not a Good Article, mostly do to an inadequate number of citations. Congratulations to the nominator, Nikkimarie, in correcting these deficiencies in a very short space of time.Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And thanks to Pyrotec for his review and for his help in improving the article. (Good luck with Stranger on the Shore!). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)