Talk:Instrument 1/GA1

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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 11:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review this article - I'll probably need 3-4 days to go through everything and do a first pass. 11:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time! I'm usually active so I'll be able to answer your points whenever they come. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Most of this is fine, but I'm turning up some small word choice issues that are giving off a non-neutral tone
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Earwig came up with 28.1%, with the majority thereof being from quotations, so no plagiarism problems. OR: see below. Refs are well formatted.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * this is fine
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars found looking through the history
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are fine in terms of copyright, but captions need full stops where they are full sentences (all images). I like the use of the multiple image templates!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

- Alright, I've looked through the refs you changed and I' happy now, so I'll Pass the article. Congrats, and thanks; it was a pleasure to work with you! 09:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You too. Thanks again! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

 * Note a looks like OR to me, needs a citation or needs to go
 * Removed, don't know why I put that in - S
 * Can we change to something a bit less marketing-y?
 * Changed to - S
 * - needs a citation. Not explicitly stated in the article, and the citations given only say that the final was the sixth prototype, not redesign.
 * Thanks for catching the semantic error there! Fixed - S
 * can be axed, is too detailed for the lead. Change to something like "The instrument was received positively by critics, with comparisons drawn to other electronic string instruments instruments such as ..."
 * Axed as suggested and joined with a semicolon - S
 * "The device's popularity" needs to go: not cited that popularity vs for example its utility in helping the disabled caused the nominations. Also gives an un-NPOV vibe.
 * Yes, I agree. Honestly I don't know what I was thinking when writing these phrases. Replaced with the simple - S
 * Innovation by Design needs to be italicised
 * done - S
 * lowered muscle control -> link Hypotonia
 * done - S
 * why is WCET given as an abbreviation? the phrase is used again once in the article, and even then the abbreviation is repeated. Remove in both instances
 * done - S

Background

 * } - can this be changed to simply "is the co-founder of Artiphon, a Nashville-based..."? Flows much better
 * "music software interface" -> should this link to List of music software? or do you mean an audio interface?
 * The next paragraph also kinda feels a bit janky, can we combine some of the sentences? I think something like "While jamming with friends at a dinner party, Butera noticed that people were using mobile devices to create music. This led him to consider the ergonomic problems with this: "[they had their] fingers and hands contorted around a device that just begged to be dropped". This in turn led to the creation of the Instrument 1, which was Artiphon's first project." but feel free to move that around as you like it.
 * All should now be done - S
 * All should now be done - S

Production and release
this reads much better than the previous section, less to copyedit haha
 * link hardwood
 * dock -> link Docking station
 * "The speakers of this design were appreciated by testers" - The fact that the speakers received feedback in a beta test is imo pretty WP:BLUESKY so put in an opinion
 * link Software compatibility
 * only sources 1 and 19 can cite that pledges starting from $349, so make that clear by duping one of them after that sentence. Also can you add in the information about the more expensive Nashville version?
 * axe, make the next sentence
 * These should now be done. Don't worry, you're not the first to comment on my inability to create good background sections! - S

Design

 * "envisioned" is a weasel word -> "imagined"
 * from to the end of the paragraph should go - a few reasons for this. 1) "relatively expensive" is subjective, so would need to be shown it's according to the article author's opinion, in relation to other controllers. It can be removed because you're talking about the same thing from the same article in the Reception section. The second sentence is using the same source as the ones above, so just shift the point of experiment-ability into one of those sentences.
 * link Learning curve, techniques -> Musical technique

other paragraph:
 * polyphony -> Polyphony and monophony in instruments
 * lightning connector -> Lightning (connector)
 * italicise "Nashville" in "Nashville edition"

Reception

 * actually no other comments here, that sentence just needs adjusting
 * actually no other comments here, that sentence just needs adjusting

Legacy

 * redlink OHMI Trust, should have an article
 * link Primary school, might be unfamiliar to Americans

OK, I'll do some spotchecks, and then we can pass the article :D 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Frzzl: All above should now be done. Over to you :) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks
I was a bit concerned at the issues I came up with, they need to be addressed before I can pass this. Refs I checked, as of rev 1170556175, bolded are problems: 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 27, 30, 33, 36, 44


 * "or create new instrument configurations" - not in 1
 * removed - S
 * neither 1 or 15 actually mention keyboard per se in Overall Design
 * replaced with PCMag source - S
 * "Butera formerly performed as a touring musician on the fiddle" - 2 doesn't mention touring
 * Removed. the reference immediately after does: 3 says "I’ve been a touring musician". Then again, this isn't explicity about the fiddle, so my mistake - S
 * "and NAMM shows the same year" - 11 isn't a good citation for this, replace with 6
 * done - S
 * In Production, 15 doesn't mention the individual iPhones, just that it has a docking station, so needs to be moved back
 * done - S
 * In Overall Design, 18 doesn't mention the octaves, just the strings, needs to be moved back
 * moved - S

Can you go through the places where you have 2+ refs put together and check that they're precise about what they're reffing. 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've looked through them all and corrected a couple - S