Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carillon/archive1

Carillon

 * Nominator(s): Thrakkx (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The carillon is an Old World musical instrument, emerging from centuries-old, interconnected traditions of bell-ringing, time-keeping, metalworking, and more. It is one of the only musical instruments that you cannot play in private—everyone in earshot must bear witness to your performance. There are fewer than 1,300 carillons worldwide according to the most generous counts; it is fascinating to learn about an instrument where the population is a critical component to its existence. One of the biggest struggles for those who love this instrument is to spread awarnesss of it. My teacher calls the carillon "the world's longest and best kept secret." What better way than to have a high-quality, encyclopedic article freely available for all!

Since its creation in 2002, this article has not been in the best shape. I've been working to improve it since January of this year. I am grateful for, who was particularly picky during the GA nomination, for , who gave me plenty of advice in both the formal peer review and informally, and for , who did great copyediting work. Thanks in advance to all who contribute to this review. Thrakkx (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review
 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Fixed.


 * File:Twinkle_Twinkle_Little_Star_on_the_Netherlands_Carillon.ogg: what's the copyright status of the arrangement? Ditto File:Luksemburgo,_katedralo_dNS,_kariljono,_1.ogg, File%3AJingle_Bell_Rock_played_on_the_University_of_Michigan_carillon.webm
 * Comment: for the second file, I cannot recognize the melody. It sounds like an automated melody before an hour strike or an improvisation—not sure. For the other two, I realize the music is not in the public domain. However, I will attempt to get permission from the rightsholders before we remove the files. I think Commons has a process to document that.
 * I realize that the Jingle Bell Rock video is absolutely not free to use—a little embarrassing. I marked it for deletion on Commons and uploaded a different Creative Commons-licensed YouTube video. The music in this video is composed by Matthias Vanden Gheyn—guaranteed in the public domain. I am still going to reach out to the rightsholder for the Twinkle Twinkle Little Star recording. Thrakkx (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Last update: the recordings currently in the article are way more trouble than they're worth in terms of licensing. I looked through Commons and found this file (File:Fixed Pattern of Distant Stars by Tiffany Ng and Jen Wang.ogg), which has its own template explaining that every component of the recording is properly licensed with CC-BY-SA 4.0. The source link is dead, but I found another source confirming the terms of the license. I will go ahead and use this one recording and keep the new video. So, everything listed in this image review (except the pending OTRS) should be solved. Thanks. Thrakkx (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * File:O_Canada_and_God_Save_the_King_instrumental_1927.ogg: links are dead, and what's the status of this work in the US?
 * Comment: I searched the website of the dead link to no success. The Canadian public domain reasoning given by the Commons uploader checks out according to quick research. For the U.S., I don't think it enters the public domain until January 1, 2023. I've never seen this happen on Commons—is it allowed?
 * No - Commons only allows files that are free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, then it seems it will have to be removed. This is surprising to me, given that the file has been on Commons since 2008. Is there a process to have someone more qualified at Commons do their own invesgiation? Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You could either post to commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright, or nominate it for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Earliest_Carillonneur_Picture.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Church_bell_cutaway.png
 * Added.


 * File:Comparison_of_two_carillon_transmission_systems.jpg: is there a link to the original source? What were the terms of permission for adaptation?
 * Comment: There is no link. I am personally connected to the author, and received his written permission via email to combine and use two images from his 1993 thesis (which is cited in the article sources) under the license with which I uploaded it.
 * Can you submit that permission to OTRS? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Working on that now. Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Stolen_Bells_during_WWI.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not sure. I uploaded it to Commons because I believe this image is in the public domain according to Ukrainian and U.S. law since this was captured in 1915. Thrakkx (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Public domain in the US is generally based on date of publication, not creation - being captured in 1915 doesn't in itself make the image free. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it seems this image will have to be removed, since I cannot find evidence of its publication date. Apologies. Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * Carillons with 23 to 27 bells and 35 to 39 bells are classified as two-octave and three-octave carillons, respectively. Players of these instruments often use music written specifically for the limited ranges." Is this footnoted?
 * Whoops, added.
 * "" the Committee for Public Safety published instructions for extracting the copper from bells." This is, I assume, the same thing as the melting down for cannons noted at the end of the paragraph? If so, why say it twice?
 * Comment: I mention this to explain why the French wanted to remove bells from village towers. How about this wording?: That way, this sentence explains why the bells were removed and the end of the paragraph explains what the copper was used for.
 * " bellfounders installed 43 carillons in North America, namely the United States and Canada." Why do we need to mention North America given that Canada and the US are mentioned? Obviously there are other parts of North America but they don't seem involved here.
 * Removed.
 * DId nothing of significance in the history of the carillon occur between the late 1940s and 1999?
 * Comment: Most of the development during this period was with the repertoire. In the music section, it talks about the new, American approach to playing and writing music. I wasn't sure whether it should be mentioned both there and in the history section. Other than this, all that really happened was the construction of more carillons.
 * " Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" " is at least double-linked
 * Comment: It is linked twice (three times if we include the image caption, but as far as I'm aware, that one doesn't count). This was brought up in the GAN. My justification for the second link is that it is part of quite a bold statement:
 * I would suspect the American public is most familiar with the Netherlands Carillon near Washington, D.C, since it is often visited on tourist trips through Arlington Cemetery. Possibly some mention could be made of it.
 * Good point; done. I replaced the Springfield, Illinois carillon in the gallery with the Netherlands Carillon.
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments; let me know if you have more. Thrakkx (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems good, though certainly not my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

 * Support per my comments in the peer review. I may go over the article once more after more changes, but that will perhaps result in comments, not in no support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirming support. Two minor thing to think about:
 * The article is about the instrument first and it's players second, - I suggest to therefore have the second image first, with the bells.
 * I suggest to have the two bolded names for the players (probably redirects?) in the lead, not below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aza24

 * Happy to Support per my GAN review and look through just now. A thoroughly researched and informative article. Aza24 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

 * Like Wehwalt, well outside my my field of expertise. There is one within earshot, but I haven't heard it lately; it think it is down for maintenance. I made a minor change. Looks fine to me. No issues. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The National Carillon in Canberra – one of three carillons in Australia! Thrakkx (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
 * Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported in the text. For example, the lead states the instrument "experienced a peak in the mid-18th century"; the text has a much broader range for this peak.
 * Fixed.
 * "Tremolos offered a solution to a Romantic-era limitation of the carillon: its inability to reproduce sustained notes expressively" - source?
 * Fixed. The citation on the previous sentence also covered that one—whoops.
 * What makes TowerBells a high-quality reliable source? Essential Vermeer?
 * TowerBells is as high-quality of a source as the WCF carillon registry and the Peace Carillons registry in that there is only one way to conduct these counts: mailing survey forms to towers that could potentially be housing bells. TowerBells was originally sponsored by the Guild of Carillonneurs in North America (GCNA), but the curator chose to sever professional connections and publish the information themselves (source for this claim). Yes, WP:SPS comes to mind, however it is THE source that carillonneurs use for statistics and general knowledge. For example, this message (page 3) from the GCNA president cites TowerBells, long after the professional connection was severed. If we compare it to other registries, we can easily see that TowerBells is the highest -quality source. The WCF registry is clearly dated and of a lower quality than TowerBells.org. It lacks so much critical information on a particular carillon (year installed, history of renovations/upgrades, exact location, current and past players/owners, etc.) that TowerBells provides, and may not have been updated in many years, as newer carillons listed on TowerBells are not listed at the WCF. It goes without saying that the distribution of carillons across the world is arguably one of the most important talking points for this article. TowerBells is the most rigorous and well-rounded source available.
 * Oops, I did not realize I was still citing Essential Vermeer. That article series was written in memory of André Lehr, and is largely based off his campanology textbook. I thought I replaced all the Vermeer citations with equivalent citations from Lehr's textbook – Fixed.
 * Several entities are entered in work title fields in the citation templates that would be better described as publishers - eg WCF. Please check throughout.
 * Fixed. I was unsure about TowerBells.org, so I kept it under the website parameter.
 * Still some issues here, eg FN102. Also, Towerbells.org or TowerBells.org? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed #102., rereviewed the rest, and edited a few more. Thrakkx (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Capital "B" – Fixed. Thrakkx (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FN36: are there any independent sources supporting this claim? Ditto FN89
 * For FN36, I added a source from the GCNA corroborating the Kirk in the Hills carillon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that Kirk in the Hills describing the fact that it is tied with the Sout Korean carillon is neutral enough.
 * What specifically does the GCNA source say? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "" I imagine this will be a common question for future editors, so I added this quote to the citation. Thrakkx (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For FN89, there is no other source supporting the library's claim. Not surprising – it is an obscure library supporting a tiny community. I reworded the sentence about it from "" to "".
 * Check that page ranges consistently use "pp" rather than "p", and be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
 * Fixed. I do not see any citations that deviate from the abbreviated method (e.g. 1##–##, 2##–##)
 * How are you ordering entries in Internet?
 * The original intent was ordering by author last name if available, then alphabetical by title, but I see that has mostly fallen apart over time. Now ordering alphabetically by title.
 * Why so many External links entries?
 * I removed two links: Essential Vermeer (no longer needed) and TowerBells (already cited)
 * How does Swager meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
 * Swager wrote his dissertation while studying in Flanders as a Fullbright Scholar and also while in France under a (French) government grant. He notes that 1) made several Dutch-language sources available to English speakers via incorporating their information into his thesis and compiling a bibliography, and 2) he contacted a "national organization" of carillonneurs (likely the GCNA as he is American) to meet with other experts. As Indiana University itself had its carillon back then, I assume good faith in that the university had made available subject matter experts to review the dissertation. A quick search on Google Scholar shows that his dissertation has been cited once in 2017. This is not significant for most topics, but for the carillon, which sees little research in comparison to other musical instruments, it is.
 * The website for the North American Carillon School appears to be dead - is there any more information about this publisher?
 * I do not see what you mean here, the link in External links is up-to-date (they recently switched URLs from "carillonschoolusa.com" to "northamericancarillonschool.com", though I updated the link as soon as the new site went live). I removed "/home" from the URL in case that was causing an issue. Can you try again?
 * DeepBlue is a repository - it should be credited using via if at all, and the original publication information (if relevant) should be included in full. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thrakkx (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * forgot to ping you. Thrakkx (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No pending issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720
Non-expert prose review.


 * "Though the word carillonneur literally refers to carillon players that are men, the French carillonneuse to denote women is not used." I think it needs to specify earlier in the sentence that the article is talking about the French language. Perhaps, "The French language has a separate word for female carillon players (carilloneuse), but this was not adopted for the English language."
 * Comment: I personally like the wording of this sentence, but I see your point. How about: "the French carillonneuse to denote women is not used in English."?
 * Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "the carillon's pedals are shorter and thicker and spaced far apart." -> "the carillon's pedals are shorter, thicker, and spaced far apart."
 * Fixed.
 * Redlink "Guild of Carillonneurs"?
 * Added, though an article once existed and was deleted via PROD in 2013.
 * "The carillon's cast bronze, cup-shaped bells" is the word "cast" supposed to be there, or is there supposed to be a comma after cast? I might be wrong though.
 * Comment: should be there with no comma.
 * "Denyn took over as the city carillonneur, who was responsible for playing the carillon in the tower of St. Rumbold's Cathedral." -> "Denyn took over as the city carillonneur and was responsible for playing the carillon in the tower of St. Rumbold's Cathedral." To remove a comma and flow.
 * Fixed.
 * "that his father had begun installing on the cathedral carillon further." Is further supposed to be here?
 * Yikes, "further" should appear immediately before "developed" – Fixed.
 * "The book painted an idealized picture" idealized picture of what?
 * Of the region (the Low Countries) – Fixed.
 * "to help establish a carillon school" Delete help
 * Removed.
 * "was seen as an annihilation of a unique, democratic musical instrument." Was seen by whom?
 * By the Allied Powers of each World War – Fixed.
 * "Price capitalized on this unique opportunity to publish a study on the ideal tonal qualities of Europe's bells." Delete unique, it's a little outside WP:WIKIVOICE and unnecessary.
 * Removed.
 * I'm surprised that there is nothing in the history section from post-WWII to 1999. Is there any significant history of the carillon to note for this period?
 * Comment: most of the development during this period was with the repertoire. In the music section, it talks about the new, American approach to playing and writing music. I wasn't sure whether it should be mentioned both there and in the history section. Other than this, all that really happened was the construction of more carillons and the establishment of the World Carillon Federation (which is discussed in the Organization and education section).
 * I would add brief comments in the history section about the development of the North American style, and keep information in the music section focused on the characteristics and major composers of the North American style. I would also add information about the creation of the World Carillon Federation. Perhaps something like, "In the 1950s and 1960s, a North American style of carillon music emerged. Its creation was led by Ronald Barnes, a professor at the University of Kansas, who created new compositions for the instrument and encouraged his peers to compose for the instrument as well. In the 1970s, the World Carillon Federation was formed as the central organization for carillon players and their enthusiasts." Keeps it short, gives a history of this time period, and this information is expanded upon later. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. I placed the WCF blurb under "International recognition" as it is an international organization and felt most relevant there. For the North American carillon movement, I created a new subheading: "Movement in North America". Hope this works. Thrakkx (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Only about 15 collections of carillon music written before 1900 are known to exist." Is there an exact number we can use here, instead of "Only about"?
 * Comment: the source says "" Using "heyday of the carillon" seems much too vague for this article, but I realize that using an exact year is actually incorrect. "Heyday" is referring to the period between the mid-17th and late-18th centuries. How about: "Some 15 collections of carillon music written in the 17th and 18th centuries are known to exist."?
 * Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "The music is clearly arranged for, rather than composed for" Delete clearly as it's unnecessary.
 * Removed.
 * "are the famous eleven preludes of Matthias Vanden Gheyn." Delete famous, per MOS:PUFFERY and I don't think it's needed.
 * Removed.

Those are my thoughts! Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comments; let me know if you have more. Thrakkx (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * secondary replies above. Thrakkx (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Coord note
Hi Thrakkx, I think this is your first FAC? If so we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One of the reviewers above might be able to undertake, or you can make a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, that is correct. I'll post a request on the talk page now. Thrakkx (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Spot-check - pass
Imma say, this is a rather large number of citations where I have follow-up questions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 84: Can I have a copy of page 127 of ?
 * Got a copy, it supports the claim but has some close paraphrase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Addressed paraphrasing, which mostly consisted of removing a sentence which I no longer feel is worth including. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 130: 'scuse me, but this looks like 11 not 20. And what makes this a reliable source?
 * I am not sure what you mean. I am counting 19 entries on that page with the identifier "trad". How are you arriving at 11? For my explanation on TowerBells' reliability, see the third bullet in the source review.
 * 34: I would probably say "more than 226 metric tons"; 500,000 pounds is less than 227 metric tons.
 * Good catch; fixed.
 * 52: Can I have copies of the two pages cited here?
 * Got it, it supports the statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 15: Seems like it's 51 bells not 49, unless the photo is only about the new ones. Same question about whether http://www.towerbells.org/ is a reliable source.
 * The source's "Remarks" says there are 51 bells in the tower; however two of them are swinging bells and not part of the carillon. "Technical data" right below reports that it is a 49-bell carillon. And again see the third bullet of the source review.
 * 45: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
 * Got it, seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 25: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
 * Got it, p.95-97 don't support the claim? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reduced citation to page 98, which does support the claim. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 57: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
 * Got it, supports the claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 99: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
 * Got a copy, it supports the claim but has some close paraphrase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Addressed paraphrasing. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 119: I can't see the definition on the webpage mentioned.
 * Right, my mistake. The definition is located on its "Organization" page, which I in Reference 35. I added it immediately after Reference 119.
 * 114: OK. I wonder how you found this program though; did you systematically search every university website?
 * So the before I began working on this article. I did not systematically search for all universities with a carillon for potential academic programs, but rather I tried to preserve the already present, unsourced information about specific American universities by adding sources. For Iowa State University, the concert program was the best I could do. If this is an unacceptable source, I can remove the university from the list.
 * 68: Can I have a copy of the page cited here? Also, I am not sure that the first link supports any of the claims.
 * Is the "first link" Thorne? I include the rape of Belgium because of this quote from Thorne: " "
 * Got the copy, it seems like it supports the claims otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 102: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
 * Got it, it seems like it only supports part of the claims (it doesn't list the names, for instance) and some others have close paraphrase problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about 102e, which supports the sentence "", and by names you mean names of the universities? The Rombouts source supports the general sentence, while each named university is supported by its own citation. I also addressed the paraphrasing.
 * 32: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
 * Got the copy, it doesn't seem to support the claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Which claim? I assume you mean the sentence "" I realize that reference is placed poorly. It should be right before that sentence, as Ref 33 supports the claim. I moved it. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 47: The source does not mention the 16th century, and at least one sentence was taken entirely from there.
 * You are right about 16th century: removed. Oops, removed the plagiarism. I checked all other Swager references and removed one instance of too-close paraphrasing.
 * 112: Hrm, doesn't this source merely say that the university has a carillon?
 * This page is a subpage of "Keyboard Studies", which lists a faculty member as the director of the carillon and organ programs. The page the article currently links to also shows that auditions are required to participate in the carillon program. Would it be better to link to the Keyboard Studies page?
 * Without your input I chose to link to the Keyboard Studies page. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 23: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
 * Got it, seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 60: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
 * Got it, it supports the claim but it seems like a close paraphrase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Addressed the paraphrasing. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8: This should probably say "Ng and Lewis" rather than just "Ng" as it seems like the script was written by more than one person. Also, it might help
 * I am not sure what you mean. Reference 8 says "Ng & Lewis 2020, p. 1."
 * Means that since two people wrote the source, the article ought to mention both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry. I was looking at Reference 8a. Fixed. Thrakkx (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 118: Why was this particular group selected for inclusion?
 * It is a registry sponsored by the University of Leuven, the Carnegie Foundation, and the City of The Hague, among others, which I feel makes it a great selection among the "themed" registries I could have chosen. For reference, every regional carillon organization counts the carillons in their region, so I had a handful of registries to choose from.
 * No worries, all comments will be addressed. how specifically am I to provide you with source copies? Via email? Thrakkx (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * : ? Thrakkx (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, screenshots per email or something like that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Got them, it solves most but not all of the sourcing issues but I can't help but think that in many cases the text of the source is too similar to the article text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I have addressed all of your comments. I would be happy to go over more sources with you. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, what is your current thinking on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd like to have a second opinion on whether the number of close paraphrases uncovered during this source check are concerning or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Jo-Jo, and thanks for going through this so diligently. I'll recuse and volunteer to give a second opinion. Without seeing the extent of the problem, I have some sympathy; it is a difficult balance to stay close enough to the source to be bullet proof, but far enough away to not run into copyright issues. I am assuming that there is not mass cut-and-pasting from sources - could you let me know if there is/has been. I am assuming that you will need to pass the source material you received on to me? Meanwhile, has the close paraphrasing which you identified above all been satisfactorily addressed?
 * Thrakkx, could you have a look at the top four "compare"s on this Earwig report and rephrase as far as you can any of the "free prose" (ie not titles of works, proper nouns etc) high lighted in red. It would be a good idea to skim through everything else and change anything which you think cleaves too closely to its source. I am assuming that by now you understand where the line should be drawn re paraphrasing - if you are unsure please let me know - and that you have gone through the article ensuring that all over-close paraphrsing has been removed or copy edited - again, if not, let me know. This is important as if my second opinion shows more than trivial amounts of over-close paraphrasing of free prose the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a mass copy-paste, but I find it concerning when so many spot checke turn up close paraphrases. I'll do a double check tomorrow. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of these identified, the close paraphrases are all cleaned up. Thrakkx, is it OK to pass on the sources you gave me to Gog? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Thrakkx (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Doing... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, if possible please wait until Monday before following through with your second opinion. I would like to use the weekend to go through every citation and ensure there are no paraphrasing issues. I will also look at the Earwig report. Thanks! Thrakkx (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. I will leave it alone until Tuesday. We want to promote this, so long as it meets the criteria. You seem to have done a good job on everything else, so I am optimistic that you will get the paraphrasing issue resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have looked through all of the major sources as well as the Earwig report and reworded what I believe were close paraphrases. I also made a handful of corrections to other citations. Thrakkx (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Jo-Jo. I assume that you are happy with everything with the spotcheck other than wanting a second opinion on possible over-close paraphrasing? If so, could you formally state this, to make life easy for the closing coordinator? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's all I have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Second opinion. Most of the paraphrasing is good. Supported by the text, but neatly rephrased. I did note areas where this was not so. Eg " Price said he capitalized on" and "Price capitalized on ". Not a show stopper, and not too many like it, but perhaps a synonym for "capitalized"? That said, the article currently seems to be free of unduly close paraphrasing, and so, taking my findings together with Jo-Jo's comments above I am going to pass the spot check. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Minor comment from Chidgk1
Might look better if the two top pics were swapped.
 * I personally believe that the first picture (carillonneur at a keyboard) is the best header image for the article, as it is difficult to distinguish a carillon from a chime or other bell instrument just by looking at the collection of bells. The carillon's defining visual feature is its keyboard. Thrakkx (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also preferring the current image first, mainly because it's less concealed. Aza24 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (Additional comment)

Gog the Mild
Some points noted in passing.
 * "brutal annihilation of a unique, democratic music instrument" - you have inserted punctuation not in the original.
 * Fixed.
 * "brutal annihilation of a unique, democratic music instrument". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
 * Are you saying that the sentence I am quoting should appear in the citation immediately following the quote, or that I should put in the running text that Thorne claims this to be true?
 * Something like 'The historian of music [or whatever] Stephen Thorn writes that the destruction of European carillons during World War I and World War II was seen by the Allied Powers as a "brutal annihilation of a unique democratic music instrument".' I note that you have correctly attributed in line a quote by Ng in the Music section - something like that.
 * Added.
 * For "Unlike the organ or pedal piano, the carillon's pedals are shorter, thicker, and spaced far apart." you rely on Courter et al p. 2. I cannot find in this source any mention of organs or pianos. Could you help me out.
 * This is my mistake. After gaining access to the Lehr source a while back, I replaced a lot of text and citations. Seemed to have missed this one, which is really lackluster. I am going to simply remove this sentence, as the only mention in my preferred source on the comparison is ""
 * "the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United States—account for two-thirds of the world total. Over 90 percent are in either Western Europe (mainly the Low Countries) or North America. In North America, about 80 percent of carillons are owned by religious or educational institutions". Cite 131 does not cover the first (part) sentence. Have you slipped a cite?
 * Oh, yes. The first two sentences in that paragraph are a written summary of what you can learn from the table below. Same goes for the last sentence. Added the table citations to the text.
 * "The reinvention initiated a revival of carillon building". I am not sure that "reinvention" is the best word.
 * What about "rediscovery", as they rediscovered how the Hemony brothers tuned bells?
 * Yep, that's a good way of phrasing it
 * Changed.
 * "The reinvention initiated a revival of carillon building". Could you quote the words in the Britannica article you are relying on to support this? Thanks.
 * Like the above, are you saying I should place the quote within the citation?
 * No, sorry, I am asking if you could help me out as a spot checker by quoting here what in the Britannica you are using to support that text.
 * I see. This is what I am using: "" Carillon art is a common term in this field, which is incredibly general. People use it to refer to carillon music, carillon performance techniques, the population of carillons in a particular area, and in this case, the construction of new carillons.
 * That's fine. Not sure why I didn't see that.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Thrakkx (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just the Thorne quote (and check the article for any other quotes - which are opinions - which lack in line attribution) and the Britannica spot check left. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looked through the article for more cases and I'd like your opinion on one. "" The citation points to Rombouts arguing that the popular belief on its etymology is false based on his research. Since this section is moreso about the etymology of the English word, I wanted to keep this sentence as concise as possible. What do you think, should I also be putting his name in the running text? Alternatively, I could change uncertain to disputed.
 * That's not a quote, so doesn't "need" in line attribution. Your summary style seems fine to me and "uncertain" seems to convey the nuances well.


 * As I have not done (anything like) a full review I am not going to either formally support nor oppose, but I have found nothing which would cause me to think that this is not a good candidate for promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a second opinion. Thrakkx (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)