Talk:Euphonium repertoire

GA Review
Hello, I'm currently reviewing this article for its' nomination as a Good Article. As I read through the article, I'll make comments here about things that both look good or need improvement, as well as a log of any edits I make for minor corrections. As a GA Reviewer, I am checking to make sure that the article is well-written, properly formatted, adequately referenced, and neutrally covers a broad range of information about the subject. Here goes... General Comments: You've clearly put a good deal of work into this, but I can't say it's up to GA standard just yet. You need a lot more references, or else you need to use the references you've got a bit more consistently. I'd also say that the article is a little over-organized. You've only got two main-level headers, but you've got 11 fourth-level ones. That's a little excessive to me. Try to promote some of your sub-sections to higher levels, and combine sections where possible. There are a few places that need some rephrasing for the proper tone - I highlighted the larger ones, but jsut scan through and make sure everything sounds neutral and professional. The amount of information you've covered in this is fine - I got a really good idea of what I could do with a euph if I actually played one. If you've got more, throw it in, but don't make that a priority. One more thing that I believe would be a great addition to the article would be a recording of some sort. I know you play the euph, NetherlandishYankee because I checked all the image pages and you claimed that picture of the horn as your own. Try to get a copy of something like a Holst suite, and/or one of those solo pieces, and get a recording of yourself playing it. Use what you've got to improve this as much as you can. It still does need a lot of work to get to GA status, but I'm quite sure you'll be able to get it there. Good luck, and as always, happy editing. Hersfold (talk/work) 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In your lead, you might want to go into a little more detail about how the euph has an "important" role in orchestras, and how it has increased in usage "dramatically". I know it's only supposed to be a summary, but just a little context would be helpful. Perhaps something like: "...has increased dramatically, spreading into other genres of music." See WP:PEACOCK for more information there. This isn't a textbook example of "peacockiness", but it's kinda hovering near the borderline.
 * Do you have a reference for the caption of the euph picture? "The most commonly used, blah blah" one.
 * The phrase "It is no surprise, then..." smacks of non-neutrality to me. It makes me, as the reader, think I'm reading something written by a used-car salesman. Try to take that out or rephrase it or something.
 * There's no reference for the third paragraph under "In bands", and I feel there should be.
 * "Indeed, examination of a large body of concert band literature reveals..." this does need a reference. You need to show where a reliable source made this examination, otherwise an editor such as myself has to assume that it was original research and have it removed. In fact, this entire section is unreferenced. Note that a lack of reliable sources is a "quick fail" criteria for good article reviews.
 * I like the footnote in the "In orchestras" section. I'm adding another "1" to where you first mention the horn in that first paragraph.
 * Please don't make links six words long. I shortened the link to the transcription article to include only "borrow".
 * Your lead paragraph in the "Solo Repertoire" section flows into "Transcriptions" very well - so well, in fact, I don't think you need the third-level header there breaking it up. I'd suggest promoting each of the instrument headers to third-level and renaming them along the lines of "Solos based on cornet" or something.
 * As we continue down the article, I'm still seeing a noticeable lack of references. Actually, as I scan down from the "Other" section which I am just about to start reading, I can see there are only two references left in the whole article - in the very last paragraph. Not good at all.
 * I'm adding a link to saxhorn. Despite playing Alto Sax myself, I've never heard of such an instrument and had to go look it up.
 * I'm also rewording the first sentence in "Non-traditional" to get rid of the word "Finally". Sorry, that just doesn't carry the right tone for an encyclopedia. The rest of that sentence may need some NPOV work done as well.
 * This section of the quote can probably (and probably should) be taken out: "and always plenty of light-hearted fun"