Talk:Mellotron/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  03:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

1: 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:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 6) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 7) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 8) *** The Mellotron is an electro-mechanical, polyphonic tape replay keyboard originally developed and built in Birmingham, England, in 1963.
 * 9) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 10) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 11) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 12) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 13) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 14) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 15) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 16) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 17) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 18) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 19) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 20) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 21) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 22) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 23) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) ** Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading (WP:BETTER).
 * 6) ** Fix the Competitors section. The paragraph is too short.
 * 7) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 8) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 10) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 13) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 14) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 15) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 16) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 17) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 18) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 19) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes


 * Gosh, thankyou. Given that 18 months ago editors were getting blocked for edit warring on the article, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. Thanks --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

6: Images ✅ (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Netherlands license) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article :
 * I think the layout needs to be fixed.
 * Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading (WP:BETTER).
 * Done. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fix the Competitors section. The paragraph is too short.
 * As you can see from the lengthy archives on the talk page, the section was longer but objected to its factual accuracy based on the sources I have and so I removed it pending better sources, which never turned up. I am loathe to expand a section for sake of expanding without some good quality reliable sources. An alternative is we just chop this section out. What would you advise?  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I confess I'm not quite sure. You're right but I think it should not be removed. So let's leave it as it is. Thanks! --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "It evolved from the earlier Chamberlin, a similar instrument, but could be mass-produced more effectively." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow?)
 * Reworded and cut down. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The instrument works by pulling a section of magnetic tape across a head when a key is pressed, and provides a mechanism to select different sounds." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow? For example: When a key is pressed, a section of magnetic tape is pulled across a head … )
 * Reworded and cut down. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(definite article needed before "television personality"?)
 * "The bandleader Eric Robinson and television personality David Nixon were heavily involved in the instrument's original publicity."
 * I would have thought "television personality" is an adjective, so the definitive article is not appropriate. Can you clarify as to what your intent is? Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. I misjudged it. Apologies. --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Mellotron's popularity greatly increased following its prominent use by The Beatles and by subsequent groups including The Moody Blues and King Crimson, as well as being a notable instrument in progressive rock generally." (Can you rephrase it? The part "as well as being a notable instrument in progressive rock generally" doesn’t seem to fit in.)
 * Reworded. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The instrument's popularity waned, however, due to the introduction of polyphonic synthesizers and samplers in the 1980s,, and production ceased in 1986." (Can you rephrase it? or break into simpler sentences? For example: Despite a number of high profile uses from Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and XTC, the popularity of the instrument waned after the introduction of polyphonic synthesizers and samplers in the 1980s. As a result, the production ceased in 1986.)
 * Copyedit to cut down on the word count. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Mellotron has a similar behaviour to a sampler, but generates its sound via audio tape." (or "The Mellotron has a behaviour similar to a sampler, but generates its sound via an audio tape."?)
 * I'm not really keen on that - it's more words. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "One note of the frequently used string sounds reportedly contains the sound of a chair being scraped in the background." (Why reportedly?)
 * Because that's what the source says! I've specifically attributed it to the author Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence "While tapes were designed to last years, continual movement of the instrument, and transfer between cold storage rooms and hot lighting on stage could cause the tapes to stretch and stick on the capstan." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
 * Cut down. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Robert Fripp infamously stated that "Tuning a Mellotron doesn't"." (Is it correct? I’m not sure what’s infamous in the quote?)
 * I've cut out "infamous" but the quotation is just as Fripp said it and a search for it returns numerous hits. This source said he famously said it! Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The earlier 1960s MK II units", "backing tracks on the Mk II's left hand", "the MKII, was released the following year" (consistency issue: Which one of "Mk II" is correct? Or it doesn’t matter?)
 * Consistency is definitely important. Sources are wildly inconsistent (an official manual from Streetly Electronics mentions no model, book sources vary between "MkII", "MKII" and "Mark II". Nick Awde and Andy "Planet Mellotron" Thompson use "MkII", so I am going with that. However, to be seriously confusing, models from "Mark V" upwards are spelled out in full. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Ritchie333, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)