Talk:Clarinet/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * 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&mdash;oboe, bassoon, and English horn&mdash;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) ✅Pyrotec (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


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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)