Jump to content

Talk:Leslie speaker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Leslie speaker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time

Take as long as you need. I had a read through the article last night and found about 6 things I'd like to copyedit, but can't find them now. Hopefully you can! One thing that might be worth mentioning is the structure of the article fell out of the discussion at Talk:Hammond organ/GA1, which in turn comes from Pipe organ, where sections are structured in increasing order of technicality, so a casual reader is more likely to find what they're looking for earlier in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just glanced at the structure after reading your note. I see that aspects of the speaker are separated by the history and model sections. I'm not clear on how that helps the general reader. Wouldn't it make more sense to keep related sections together? Just at a glance, would History, Components/Elements (Cabinet, Controls, Interface, Sound generation, Miking), Models, Clones, Users, be simpler for the general reader to find the information they are seeking? I haven't read the discussions you mention yet, this is just a passing note..... ;-)SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind doing it for Hammond organ was to explain the basic controls for somebody who hadn't seen one before, which are now a lot of people. Though they probably have seen a piano or other keyboards, the first section explains extra controls and differences between the Hammond and that. However, for the Leslie speaker, the only real control is "slow" / "chorus" or "fast" / "tremolo", so it would make sense to move it later and possibly put History first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
Query
  • Captions on some images are a little long, and may need trimming per WP:Caption, a GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layout. The use of images and media makes the article look cluttered and messy. Consider the amount of images - are all needed? And is there a way of presenting them that makes the article look more appealing?
I think you may have to be more specific - I think it's fine, but I know from usability testing that you can design something and become so used to it that you can't see where other users struggle. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the external links relevant per WP:ELYES? SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The official sites - definitely. The others describe technical information that would be unsuitable to put in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not getting far and I'm struggling with the prose. Does "treble and bass speaker" mean one speaker for both bass and treble, or separate speakers? I'm inclined to think it would mean separate speakers, but the prose indicates just the one. This sentence "It is named after its inventor, Donald Leslie and most commonly associated with the Hammond organ, though it was later used for the guitar and other instruments" is awkward - I assume it means that the speaker is associated with the organ. If that is the intention - perhaps split into two sentences. Where I can do copyediting, I will, but I don't want to guess. I assumed that "combo" in "The Leslie speaker is a combo amplifier and loudspeaker" meant "combined" so I changed that - but in case I was wrong, please adjust, and make clear what is meant by combo in this situation. I'm not sure I will be able to copyedit this article, so it may be an idea to get a fresh pair of eyes on it, and then ping me when that is done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that the lead is trying to describe general features for every Leslie speaker manufactured, and there aren't that many. Some Leslies have a separate treble and bass speaker, some have just the bass speaker, some have a combined treble / bass speaker. "Combo" comes from combo amplifier. I've split out the bit about Don Leslie and put it in the second paragraph. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All tags should now be addressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fail

General comments

[edit]
See comment above I made on the 18th. ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose sometimes slips into instruction manual, which is discouraged per WP:NOTHOW. Example: "Care must be taken when attempting to service them, as an incorrectly or poorly wired cable can cause permanent damage to the organ and / or speaker, or result in electrocution." SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A non-NPOV way of saying the above would be "Unlike a guitar amplifier, a badly soldered lead might kill you" - does that explain the intent? Unfortunately, a non-techies view of a Leslie might just be "an amp that makes a funny sound", or even not be aware of its existence at all, so I'm a bit of a loss at what else to suggest, unfortunately. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just leave out the servicing instructions altogether? Like you, I wouldn't see that rephrasing would make any difference - it would still be advice. If the Leslie's soldering was known to be of a poor standard such that users had been electrocuted, and there were independent reliable sources discussing this, that would be worth including. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There must be extensive sources, although they may be about 30 years old and in print, otherwise the 11 pin Leslie system would not have been required by law. source Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "poor soldering" would be the fault of the installer, not the manufacturer. Leslie didn't provide pre-made cables, as the length thereof would vary widely with each installation, and as the cable was very expensive per length, this is the way to save the customer money. The cables and connectors provided were of standard UL commercial quality made by Amphenol. I believe the coustom made cable was Belden, but again, I'm not dead sure. That was LOOONG time ago.
The greatest hazard was due to the fact that the plate voltage (for the vacuum tubes) was supplied from the organ itslf through that cable. My memory tells me it was around 180 volts DC. There was also 115 volts for the motors, and 6.3 volt balanced AC for the heaters and a single low-voltage wire for controlling the motor engagement.Then the is, of course, the balanced twisted pair for the audio with a braided sheild and the ground (common). This made for a thick and difficult-to-work-with cable. Later versions sported on-board power supplies, alleviating the need for plate and heater voltages.
End of dissertation. 108.227.225.226 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

An interesting article. I don't see significant problems to this becoming listed. Article needs a cooyedit and tidying up, but on the whole the content appears sound, and that's the main thing. On hold for th standard initial seven days to allow the issues mentioned above to be addressed or queried. I am, as always, quite happy to extend beyond seven days as long as work or communication is taking place. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smiths : How Soon Is Now?

[edit]

IMO, another very popular use of the Leslie Speaker was in The Smiths song How Soon Is Now? during the song opening and throughout the song. This is a prototypical example for some college music classes. If I find a reference for this then I'll add that to the Notable Users section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmoon (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hammond/Leslie "marriage" became a standard in the Gospel music beggining in the forties. Many African-American churches adopted this arrangement as a compliment to piano, as it gave a a good approximation of far more expensive pipe organs. Often the system constitsed of a Hammond B3 or C3 with the Hammond PR40 tone cabinet nd a Leslie 122RV, placed above the choir loft so thattherotqtiong Leslie would have its effect greatly enhanced the effect for a very impressive sound.
Many jazz and blues musicians polished their arts in such churches. 108.227.225.226 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Because the Leslie is a sound modification device in its own right, ...."

[edit]

   Forgive the dullness of those of us who don't find that clear, but how has that property of the device stimulated efforts at simulation?
--Jerzy ("Simulates-a-state-of-being-stimulated") [NO SURNAME]•t 00:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? Grab a Hammond and Leslie, stand in the middle of the room, get one person to play a note and listen. Or read the citations that talk about it in the body, particularly Scott Faragher's excellent Hammond / Leslie book. Or play File:LeslieCabinetSlowFastSlow.ogg. For a practical example, Santana uses lots of slow / fast Leslie switching, while Made in Japan has no Leslie at all, but has the Hammond going through a Marshall Stack. You should be able to easily hear the difference. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leslie speaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker animation

[edit]

The animation is slightly inaccurate in it's depiction of the Leslie speaker function, in that the animation depicts both the horn (treble) rotors and the woofer drum (bass) rotors rotating in the same direction, while the Wikipedia entry for the similar Sharma speaker notes that in a Leslie, these two components rotate in opposite directions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.177.164 (talk • contribs)

Other musical applications

[edit]

I think it's worth mentioning its importance in Gospel music, especially that of the African-American churches... Many famous jazz and blues singers began their careers by either playing through or singing with a Hammond B3 or C3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.227.225.226 (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive plural for company names?

[edit]

In the first section of this article, I see "Hammond were not interested". The reference is to the electric organ mfg. company.

This is the first time I've encountered this anywhere. Does using "were" in this context comply Wiki style? 74.198.131.130 (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a UK/US thing. Given that it's about a US company/product/inventor, "was" should probably prevail (AIUI it specifically refers to Mr Hammond anyway) but as I'm English I'm biased in favour of the UK, er, flavour. --Vometia (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably a mistake, as a British editor, I probably did that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leslie_speaker&oldid=1202462758"