Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pipe organ/archive1

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 not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

---

Pipe organ

Nominated for FA status because WikiProject PipeOrgan has attempted to prepare the article for an FA review after an organized push. The article is currently at GA status and has been peer-reviewed (archive). —Cor anglais 16 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as co-nominee. A lot of collaboration between myself and Cor anglais has pushed it into this state, much improved from the GA. I'll try and help with any issues, although am unavailable until 2 July. –MDCollins (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Object. In question are 1a, 1c and the requirement for formatting of a professional standard.

• • The latter is breached by the significant overlinking. Trivial words such as "air" and "seventeenth century" and "church", and those little-known countries, the US and the UK—why dilute your valuable links with these?
  • "The size of an organ ranges from only a few dozen pipes in a portable instrument to tens of thousands of pipes in a large installation, prompting Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to name it the "king of instruments". [The reference is: Morrison, Richard. "No one has ever been poisoned by this instrument", 2006-03-18, The Times. Retrieved on 2007-05-06." Two things: (1) was it the range from very small to very large that prompted Mozart to coin this word, or just the large end of the spectrum; (2) I wonder how authoritative a journalist's writings are, as appear on an Internet site. Is it not possible to cite that original work? I also wonder who originally reported/recorded this statement of Mozart's.
  • "ranks. These ranks"
  • Churches are christian, and synagogues jewish; do we need to point this out in the lead? You can't have a buddhist church.
  • "where they are intended for the performance of classical music, especially for orchestral transcriptions". It's a bit laboured to associate their location with their stylistic purpose, and indeed to state the intention rather than the use. And aren't some organs in theatres, where they are used for playing music of other styles? And why do transcriptions get such a big rap? Some people would describe them as the bane of the organ literature (deal with them lower down?). This sentence is a mish-mash that needs recasting.

I've looked only at the top. Needs work. Tony 08:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It turns out that the attribution of the "king of instruments" quote to Mozart was wrong anyway - I've now corrected it (to Guillaume de Machaut) and referenced that to a standard academic work on the pipe organ. So that does deal with one of Tony's issues. I agree with him on the somewhat belaboured nature of the passage beginning "where they are intended" - and I'm not convinced either that performance of orchestral transcriptions is the main intention these days anyway (it might have been a century ago). Barnabypage 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've attempted to address the issues brought up by Tony and Barnaby that haven't already been addressed. I think the second sentence of the article is much improved, but, as always, please copyedit mercilessly. Also, re. overlinking: I was under the impression that all first mentions of centuries should be wikilinked in an article (ex. seventeenth century, third century BC)… is this not the case? —Cor anglais 16 04:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I don't have time to copy-edit more than what I've done. Please locate collaborators to help with the prose. Do you know some copy-editors in this field? Tony 15:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) And I reiterate that there are significant problems throughout in the prose, particularly, but not solely, ungainly repetition (e.g., how many times does "stop" appear at the start of the section by that name? Ten before you reach the fourth sentence), and little inconsistencies that crop up all over the place (Renaissance era/period). MOS breached in the final periods in the non-sentence captions, BTW. "Twentieth century" still linked—not even piped to something relevant (forgive the pun). Tony 15:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

update: Hi, I've tried to have a go at removing the excess linkage, and tidy some of the prose. More to follow.–MDCollins (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Update. I have also finished an attempt at a full-article copyedit (after reading some of Tony's suggestions on fulfilling criterion 1.a. and Wikipedia:How to copyedit). I added four {{cn}} tags in places that I think require references. Follow-up is, of course, still necessary, but I think the prose is improved. —Cor anglais 16 03:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but not sufficiently improved. Do you know how to locate collaborators who are good at copy-editing and interested in musical topics. Noetica would be good, but he's pissed with me and staying away. Try emailing him and others you locate through the edit-history pages of worthy articles. I took this section at random.
  • Why the italicised opening? Better to locate elsewhere so as not to dissipate the focus at the opening.
  • "The wind supply is stored in one or more reservoirs, which maintain a constant wind pressure." --> "reservoirs to maintain"? (Causal?)
  • "The pressure differs depending on the design of the organ and the division the wind supplies." Make it "The pressure depends on ...". "the division the wind" is hard.
  • Stops are as high as 100 inches? (And where's the metric equivalent?)
  • "Calcant"—Which language? Was this a pan-European term?
  • "before the advent of electricity". Does anyone not know what electricity is? Why is it linked?
  • "Because paying calcants was expensive, organists would usually practice on smaller instruments such as the clavichord or harpsichord." Logically, it wasn't a size issue, but the fact that the clav and hpschd required no external energy. Sorry to be picky.
  • "Though the majority of all organs, new and historic, now make use of this modern technology, a few organs that can be mechanically pumped still exist, and modern instruments have been built with this capability." "Although" is nicer in a formal register, as is "most" (except here, "almost all"). "a few ... capability" contains several problems.

(1) Lots of work to do on this unsatisfactory writing. (2) You have the opportunity of recording audio examples. Could be good if worked in succinctly. But perhaps that's for a later revision. Tony 12:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

• "are collected together in an area called" – the "together" is redundant
• "The pneumatic system opens and closes the valves within the windchest," – "within" should be replaced by "in"
• "Pipe organs are found in churches, some synagogues, and..." – the "some" is redundant. If it's being used to indicate that not all synagogue have organs, not all churches have them either.
• "By using couplers, all of the resources..." – the "of" is redundant
• "electrically-controlled stop actions" - shouldn't be hyphenated
• "historically-inspired instruments" - shouldn't be hyphenated
• "remained grouped together under a single stop control" – the "together" is redundant
• "in order to make specific literature easier" – the "in order" is redundant
• "The most famous composer of organ music is [[Johann Sebastian Bach" – "most famous" is a peacock term
• "The organ is also used as an orchestral instrument, most famously in Saint-Saëns' Organ Symphony, as well as Joseph Jongen's Symphonie Concertante for Organ & Orchestra..." – "most famously" is a peacock term, and the "as well as" doesn't read well
• "It was instruments of this grand scale that..." – sentences shouldn't start with "it" when the "it" doesn't stand for anything
• "There are different types of action;" – sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything.
• It's best to use citation templates. Epbr123 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your concerns - I have endeavoured to address them all. You say it is 'best' to use citation templates, but Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates says it is basically preference. The editors on this article have been happy formatting them (in the style recommended) without the need for the templates - do you find them a necessity? The article is consistent at least.

–MDCollins (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, leave them then. Oppose withdrawn. Epbr123 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an article that really should have some recordings in it. Also, on a more minor note - there is a citation-needed tag. Raul654 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor note fixed, I've removed the offending passage.

–MDCollins (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.