Talk:Steinway & Sons/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 15:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've now had a quick read of this article and my initial impression is that this article is GA-class, possibly somewhere between GA and FA, but I've not yet done the review or checked any of the citations.

I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section, starting at History section and working to the end, and then going back to review the WP:Lead. This is likely to take another day or so (perhaps two). At this stage I'm mostly working on negative reporting, i.e. I'll mostly be mentioning "problems", so if I don't find any there would be much to say here. Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: In the light of numerous raw web links used a citations, I'm revising this down to somewhere between C-class and B-class. Pyrotec (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Ref 44 (Forgotten New York) has a broken link it leads to a "Page Not found" message.
 * Refs 52, 53, 54, 55, which are web links have titles but not publishers (OK its Steinway & Sons, but it should be given).


 * Recent history -
 * In paragraph five, a citation aught to be provided for the claim": "By the year 2000, Steinway had made its 550,000th piano".
 * The statement: "On January 24, 2009, Steinway installed the world's largest[90] solar-powered rooftop air-conditioning and dehumidification system, at a cost of $875,000, to dehumidify the factory in New York City, and protect the pianos.[91]" aught to make it clear that "the system is claimed (or stated to be) the world's largest ...."; or even better that "the system at the time of its installation was claimed (or stated to be) the world's largest ...". The statement as it currently stands is not supported by a Reliable Source and there is no evidence that four years later it is still the worlds largest system. Note: Ref 91, makes it clear the Steinway & Sons claim to have ......
 * Reg 6 is a raw web link that goes to a search page here. The report I assume that is being used as verification is on the USA's SEC site here. The latter should be used and be properly cited. It's also a 62 page report with almost the same number of pages again in the appendices (F-pages), so a page number or numbers should be given.
 * See Ref 113 - that is exactly how it should be done.
 * Refs 92, 93, 94 & 95 are raw web links. They should be properly cited.
 * Ref 96 is a raw web link with the title "Yoko Ono's official YouTube page", perhaps it is but opens "John Lennon: Imagine Peace". I've not seen any statement that it is "Yoko Ono's official YouTube page". The site is being used to verify "The piano can be seen in the 1971 film footage that features John Lennon performing Imagine", so "John Lennon: Imagine Peace" is a more relevant title.
 * Refs 98, 99 & 100 are raw web links they should be properly cited.

....Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise OK.


 * Piano models -
 * Ref 5 is a broken web link - gives a 404 error.
 * Ref 6 (see comments above in Recent history, particularly the bit about citing page numbers).
 * See Ref 113 - that is exactly how it should be done.
 * Otherwise OK.


 * Piano brands -
 * Looks OK.


 * "Piano bank" -
 * Looks OK.

....Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Manufacture -
 * As far as I, can tell the claims: "Some great pianists of the past and some active pianists today have expressed a preference for Steinway pianos produced at Steinway's factory in New York City or at Steinway's factory in Hamburg. Vladimir Horowitz played a New York-built Steinway model D-274; Arthur Rubinstein preferred the Hamburg-built Steinway model D-274. Sergei Rachmaninoff owned two New York models in his Beverly Hills home and one New York model D-274 in his New York home; however, he chose a Hamburg model D-274 for his Villa Senar in Switzerland.[116] " don't appear to be verifiable through ref 116. Ref 116 seems to state (several times) only that Rachmaninoff had a Steinway at Villa Senar near Lucerne.
 * Refs 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 141 and 142 are raw web links, they should be properly cited.


 * Affiliates -
 * Refs 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174 are raw web links, they should be properly cited.


 * Price records -
 * Looks OK.


 * Awards -
 * Mostly unreferenced.


 * Documentary films -
 * Refs 209 and 210 are raw web links, they should be properly cited.


 * WP:Lead -
 * Possibly just about compliant in respect of introducing the topic (one half of its role), but its rather "thin" for an article of this length. In particular if says nothing about the "piano bank", affiliates, the sale of the company by the family. I would consider these to be "important", based on the relative proportion of text devoted to these topics, in the body of the article, so I have concerns as to whether the Lead accurately summarise the main points of the article, as per WP:Lead.
 * The statement in the first sentence: "and subcontracted pianos from suppliers sold under secondary names" is vague and unclear. This information is then repeated, and expanded upon in the final paragraph.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

 * The nominator has been inactive since since 31 May 2012 ( see here) and two main contributors are both banned as sock puppets (see here). I'm therefore closing this review after nine days "Hold".

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria A comprehensive article
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The Lead needs more work.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Mostly well referenced, but some sections are unreferenced and some references need attention.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Mostly well referenced, but some sections are unreferenced and some references need attention.
 * 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:
 * Well illustrated.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article can be renominated at WP:GAN once the problems above are addressed. The article itself is close to being a "GA".
 * Well illustrated.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article can be renominated at WP:GAN once the problems above are addressed. The article itself is close to being a "GA".

Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)