Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pipe organ/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:16, 16 August 2008.

Pipe organ

 * Nominator(s): Cor anglais 16, WikiProject PipeOrgan 
 * previous FAC

Nominated by me on behalf of WikiProject PipeOrgan after rigorous copyediting and sourcing. The article is in much better shape than it was before the previous FAC nomination. —Cor anglais 16 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Image adjustments needed throughout, see WP:MOS regarding left-aligned images under section headings and the very large forced image sizes used. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have overhauled all of the images, to what I believe complies with the MOS - unless you can find any others that you wish to clarify further. (By the way Sandy, I'm not sure it was the right tonal/tonality link but couldn't find a better one so removed it and restructured the sentence to use 'sound' instead.) –MDCollins (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There doesn't appear to be any info on pipe organ manufacturing or other economic aspects. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true. Will have a think on that, and try find some room for it. At the very least something needs to be said about the expense of the instrument (it only has a cursory mention in the modern development section). –MDCollins (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment (from WP member) There are a couple of red links that need addressing. I suggest the organ builder can be 'stubbed'. As Organ (voicing) is quite a big job, maybe remove it until it has been created? Also the Romantic development needs some references, I've added a "fact" tag in there.–MDCollins (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Misunderstanding about redlinks, which are not undesirable, and should be included whenever the topic meets notability and warrants an article. Separately, if that article hasn't been written, this article has to explain and define terms (and I noticed a lot of undefined jargon, suggesting that an uninvolved editor might want to check jargon). Redlinks are not a valid opposition, and should not be eliminated just because the stub hasn't been written, but this article needs to define terms anyway.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification - I've obviously misunderstood that somewhere along the line.–MDCollins (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20071208171132/http://www.ondamar.demon.co.uk/lists/big1.htm
 * http://www.lawrencephelps.com/
 * http://www.crumhorn-labs.com/
 * http://www.crumhorn-labs.com/
 * http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/FS/sg.html
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I'm traveling, so responses may be delayed a bit. I was unable to check the reliability of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Will try and find some more reliable sources. –MDCollins (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Organ pipes are made from either wood or metal and produce sound when wind is directed through them. Because one pipe produces a single pitch, more pipes are necessary to allow the organ to sound at different pitches. The longer a pipe is, the lower its resulting pitch will be. The volume of the sound produced by a pipe depends on the pressure of the wind flowing to the pipe and how the pipe is voiced (adjusted by the builder to produce the desired tone and volume). Thus, a pipe's volume cannot be changed directly while playing. Without a citation, who's to say that organ pipes aren't made from ceramic? Or plastic? Says who, the longer it is, the lower the sound? These may all be True Facts, but to be a Featured Article, information needs to be Verified using RS, otherwise, who's to say that any statement is accurate? We need to avoid all taint of OR. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Significant chunks of uncited material, including whole paragraphs, e.g.:
 * Normally I would say that this is Ok, because this paragraph is just a summary of another article that is listed with a main article template. However, organ pipe doesn't provide any sources either so it doesn't help. Therefore you have to either provide sources for the statements in the summary paragraph, or fix the main article so that it is properly sourced. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I just listed an exemplar; the article's riddled with lack of citation, and regardless of how any main or daughter article is cited, claims in the FAC should all be cited (too). --Dweller (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I agree that it is always necessary to have inline citations for a short summary paragaraph since using the main article template implies that the information is a summary of (and therefore came from) the main article, and I think the following text from WP:SUMMARY implies there is room for editorial judgement. "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." I think the idea is sort of like the idea behind WP:LEADCITE. However the point is moot for this example since the main article is not well sourced (or sourced at all), and I agree with you that that this is a general problem for this article as a whole. The "console" subsection has exactly the same issue. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (WP member): I have sourced the paragraph referred. I'll start working on the rest of the unsourced statements. —Cor anglais 16 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll try and sort them out too. Currently marking them with for a minute.–MDCollins (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question (to Dweller?) - do introductory paragraphs need references (that will appear later)? For example, this paragraph at the beginning of the construction section, introducing the section:
 * "A pipe organ contains one or more sets of pipes, a wind system, and one or more keyboards. The pipes produce sound when pressurized air produced by the wind system is driven through them. An 'action' connects the keyboards to the pipes. Stops allow the organist to control which ranks of pipes sound at a given time. The organist operates the stops and the keyboards from the console." –MDCollins (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer to previous query: citations not necessary in the lead (unless they're very contentious), as long as cited in the body of the article. Tony   (talk)  05:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments—I opposed last time, and find that the prose and factual content of the article are still not up to scratch. Let's look just at the lead. I share Dweller's concerns about the verification issues. Now, this article is well worth bringing up to standard, and I'm sorry to be a mom again about it. Can we garner help from the Wiki music community more generally? Search edit summaries of edit history pages in similar articles to locate the right word-nerds. Tony  (talk)  05:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether "European" might be snuck in before the bolded "pipe organ" at the opening. Somehow, it needs to be culturally grounded.
 * While it might be true to say that the pipe organ is predominately a European (or Western) instrument, I'm not so sure about putting it so prominently in the lead. What about all of the organs in the US, China, Japan, Australia, South Africa... It developed in Europe, yes, but has spread far wider. Could maybe make the link to European classical music more prominent?
 * "Modern organs usually include one or more keyboards playable by the hands and one keyboard playable by the feet." Didn't organs include these components long ago?
 * Too true, the development is explained later. Reworded.
 * Comment (from WP member) In this context I wonder if the photos are a little misleading - they're all of quite large and impressive organs. Should we also show a smaller, more typical instrument? Barnabypage (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Each keyboard controls a certain number of pipes."—might confuse unless you introduce the notion of "ranks" here. "... controls a fixed number of ranks (a rank is a set of pipes of a certain tone quality covering the full pitch-range of the keyboard or pedalboard)." Or some such?
 * Done.
 * "immediately after the key is struck"—"a"
 * Done.
 * "The origins of the pipe organ can be traced back to Ancient Greece in the third century BC.[3] The wind supply was originally created with water pressure. Since the sixth or seventh century AD, bellows have been used.[3]" Join the first two sentence via a semicolon, and add "for this purpose" after "used".
 * Done.
 * "Pipe organs are found in churches and synagogues, as well as secular town halls and arts buildings, where they are used for the performance of classical music." Unclear whether the "where" clause applies to all four items or just the last two. I'd do this: "Pipe organs are typically found in churches, synagogues, and large public buildings such as town halls,...". Does "classical" refer to the classical period or to art music more generally? I think pipe organs can be and are used to performance popular music too in these venues.
 * Done.
 * "spanning a period of more than 400 years"—can three words be removed?
 * Done.
 * Thanks - we're working on it.–MDCollins (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments (from WP member): I'm not particularly good with style, and unfortunately I don't know much about organ construction, so my comments are mostly content-related and concern the last two sections of the article. Sorry! Here goes:

From "History and development":
 * Shouldn't it be mentioned that it is still a mystery to everyone as to how the organ actually got into the church? (I quote Grove Online: "One of the great unsolved puzzles of music history is how and why the organ came to be almost exclusively a church instrument in western Europe from about 900 to about 1200.")
 * We mention Schnitger and Silbermann, naturally, but what about earlier organ builders? I confess I don't know much about the topic; I just know there were whole families of them, as well as individual builders, and some of them were quite important for the development of the instrument. Surely at least a couple deserve a mention? Stephan Kaschendorf and Hans Tugi are the ones I know about, but there must be many more. Try searching for "Traxdorf" in the Google Books copy of Douglas Earl Bush's and Richard Kassel's "The Organ: An Encyclopedia" - a page will come up with a whole list of German families.
 * Also, there's a problem with continuity: Schnitger and Silbermann are mentioned as simply "Baroque", while they are late Baroque masters; and they are followed by "Different national styles of organ building began to develop,.." - but national styles began to develop long before Schnitger and Silbermann were born! It seems that the article follows an "introductory paragraph first, actual content next" pattern, but I believe it is very confusing.
 * "In France, organs were designed to accompany the liturgy." - wasn't this the case elsewhere as well? And I don't believe the paragraph correctly sums up the French style of organ building: the emphasis should be on the presence of loud, distinct "solo" stops, the common case of a four-manual instrument in which, however, two manuals were simply easy ways to access two or three common stops, etc.

The entire "Repertoire" section, I believe, suffers from a lack of focus. I understand that it is not easy (to put it mildly!) to present a coherent image in a brief section. But really, it jumps all over the place: first "Before the Baroque era..", then "Pre-Renaissance", then the German "Early Baroque" quickly evolves into German Baroque without warning ("Early Baroque organ music in Germany was [blah]. Towards the end of the Baroque era.." - whatever happened during the Baroque era, then? I know when Bohm and Pachelbel lived, but the casual reader doesn't and will assume.. well, who knows what they'll assume!). The paragraph that begins with "In France, organ music developed during the Baroque era.." is mostly about Baroque, yet ends with a sentence about 19th century English music... which is followed by a discussion of Classical era organ music. Yikes! Plus, here are some questionable passages:
 * "The organ's secular repertoire includes.." - this list kind of looks "complete" to me, while of course it isn't. Perhaps an addition of "among other genres" or "and other, less popular genres" would work.
 * "There is also an extensive repertoire from the Netherlands, England, and the United States." - Um, either get it cited or remove altogether. For one thing, I can't think of any influential US organ composer; England had but a few (and I can't think of any important ones, either; certainly not an extensive repertoire?); and the Netherlands had Sweelinck, of course, but who else? Peeter Cornet is immensely important but his surviving output comprises about a dozen pieces. Even if you count Kerckhoven and later composers, I wouldn't really call it "extensive repertoire". Perhaps mentioning Spain and Italy would work better.
 * "For this reason, much of the organ's repertoire through the Renaissance period is the same as that of the harpsichord." - er, um, not really. The whole passage implies that music written specifically for organ was rare, which is absolutely not true. One of the most important sources of keyboard music of the era is The Buxheimer Orgelbuch (1470). It consists, as the title implies, exclusively of organ music - some 250 pieces. Arnolt Schlick, Paul Hofhaimer and Hans Buchner (early 16th century) all wrote liturgical organ music (the former even executed a 10-voice work, inventing some convoluted kind of pedal technique). The list of composers who did the same could go on forever: the two Cavazzonis and the two Gabrielis, Merulo, Valente, Rodio, Redford, Preston, Tallis.. and finally, there is a huge amount of anonymous liturgical organ music from the 16th century. So no, there was an extensive repertoire.
 * And by the way, I believe that at least some of these composers, like Schlick and Redford, should definitely be mentioned; otherwise there's a lack of balance: we mention more composers for Romantic and Modern eras (both notable for lack of extensive organ repertoire!) than we do for the era when the organ was one of the most important instruments. At least mention Schlick/Redford in the Renaissance paragraph, for Germany and England respectively.
 * "the chorale partita.[69] This genre was developed by Georg Böhm, Johann Pachelbel, and Dieterich Buxtehude." - again, not really. Böhm wrote a lot of partitas, but Pachelbel only wrote about 7 (in all probability they are early pieces), and Buxtehude didn't write any. Plus, its not like "partita" and "chorale" merged; "chorale partita" is just a term for a set of variations based on a chorale.
 * "The organ music of Johann Sebastian Bach fused characteristics of every national tradition and historical style" - while you'd find this statement in a lot of sources, it is not really true. For instance, Bach didn't write anything French influenced - he couldn't, because German organs were so different from French ones. (Yeah, I know, many believe that dotted rhythms are French influence. But dotted rhythms were not the main characteristic of French organ music.) As far as I remember, Bach didn't know anything about Sweelinck or other Netherlandish composers, nor did he know anything about Spanish composers; finally, the South German school was not much of an influence on his work. You could say that Bach drew on a number of traditions and created an individual style which cannot be categorized as belonging into one of the national schools.. but not that the style encompassed all national schools.
 * "organ music developed during the Baroque era through the music of Jean Titelouze, François Couperin, and Nicolas de Grigny." - the "through" here implies that these three represent successive stages in the development of organ music in France, but in reality this isn't the case, of course. It would be much better to say that French organ music started with the strict polyphony of Jean Titelouze, and progressed, through the work of Louis Couperin and Guillaume-Gabriel Nivers, to a colorful, distinct style exemplified by François Couperin, and Nicolas de Grigny.
 * Finally, perhaps you'd want to mention the blues organ, exemplified by Fats Waller, for instance. I don't know much about the topic, though; so maybe Waller isn't the right suggestion.

That's all for now. I thought the article was very nice in terms of how much it manages to explain; and the images work beautifully. However, the text definitely needs some copy-editing from someone who is good at it (An example: "The organs of northern Germany also had more divisions, and independent pedal divisions became increasingly common.[51] The divisions of the organ.. ouch, too many divisions! :) Now, I understand that this is probably rather difficult to fix, but it also is - really! - very tiring to read). The lack of citations has already been mentioned by others; I can't help here, sorry. --Jashiin (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jashiin - certainly a lot of comments to take on board. We must remember that the repertoire section was intended to be only a summary, the main article being at organ repertoire (yes, I know that article needs a lot of work). I've got two music degrees and am a regular performer, and I struggled to recall some of the names you've mentioned, so you obviously know more about it than some of us. Would you consider helping? I think the summary on this article only has room for some of the more notable persons, and those relevant to the general reader, without it seeming like a list of names. There is an imbalance to the amount of composers mentions, but this is because they are the more prominent (rightly or wrongly, your top division of Bachs and Buxtehudes, Viernes and Widors will always be more notable/popular than lower-league Titelouze, Schlick, Tugi). I think the repertoire article could do with an overhaul at some point to allow this article to remain a basic summary.


 * That said, the factual inaccuracies do need fixing (the partita issue you mentioned being one of them). I have some recollections about Bach being influenced by the French, I'll try and dig them out. But the idea that he took on board ideas from every organ tradition is probably wrong, yes.


 * Thanks for the comments, I (we) will see what we can do. Again, if you feel you can help, especially from your areas of expertise, it would be gratefully received. –MDCollins (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to find time today or tomorrow to work on the repertoire section; as for organ builders, I'm afraid someone else is needed, as I know very little of them - just that they existed and certain families/individuals were very prominent and important. I'll look in a couple of places, but can't offer any substantial content.. As for French influence in Bach - yes, he did write a French Ouverture, he was most definitely aware of French chamber/orchestral music (but that is not relevant here), and he did use an ostinato by André Raison for his passacaglia, etc. - its just that, as you correctly put it, he did not summarize everything. --Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A thank you from me as well for your insightful comments, especially those on the Repertoire section. However, as the author of the phrase regarding Bach fusing characteristics of every style, I would push for the retention of the general sentiment, though the sentence itself does appear to be inaccurate on the whole. Bach was influenced one way or another by almost every national style (though you correctly mention that Spanish influence doesn't appear, nor does English influence), especially the French style (the Pièce d'Orgue, BWV 572 is unquestionably based on the petit/grand plein jeu type ((the first section's quick scalar passages followed by the middle section's five voices, white-note motion, alla breve meter, and emphasis on harmonic motion as opposed to melodic motion)), and its harmonic language bears striking resemblance to that used by Boyvin and Grigny; the augmented ninth chord in m. 125 is characteristically French classical) and the Italian style (Italian concerto, yes, but more importantly, the Vivaldi transcriptions ((in which he "corrected" some of Vivaldi's uneven phrase structures)) and "fortspinnung" pieces like the Prelude and Fugue in D major, BWV 532). Sweelinck's figurative techniques are the basis for Scheidt's Tablatura nova, which ushered in the north German style of chorale-based composition: while Bach wasn't directly influenced by Sweelinck, his music is the culmination of the growth of that style. And I would argue that the south German style was a direct influence on Bach, especially in the chorale preludes. AT ANY RATE, Bach's music represents a synthesis of the predominant modern styles (everyone basically aspired to write in the Italian style or the French style), and he managed to master the historical styles as well, though he was not exactly a melting pot, if that makes sense. Thanks again for your helpful comments and for your offer to shape up the repertoire section. I will attempt to source anything and everything that needs it, but this is proving difficult, as I'm about to write below. —Cor anglais 16 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerning sources for the Repertoire section, anything before 1700 is no problem for me to source, I've got plenty of material on that. Concerning Bach, I understand the situation, I just wish to avoid giving a false impression, without going into unnecessary detail. Could we just replace "every national tradition and historical style" with what you just wrote - "the predominant modern styles"? Again, saying "every" may confuse someone who, later on, will read about Bach and find no mention of the English and Spanish school they have read about in this article. --Jashiin (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed; sounds good to me. —Cor anglais 16 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment (from WP member): I have been trying to respond to citation requests on this review (I think it's great that people are finally getting on us to do this; the peer review did a little, but you don't seem to get a real intensive focus on the little things there like you do in FAC). I have been working primarily out of the Cambridge Companion, the Harvard Dictionary of Music, Grove, and now the Gleason organ method book. Some things simply don't appear to be cited anywhere: for example, the definition of "stop knob" and "rocker tab", their function, and how they activate electrical circuits when pressed/pulled, or also the presence of Roman numerals on mixture stop labels. Simply put, nobody seems to be writing about these things because they're the kind of information that passes from teacher to student (in the case of the Roman numerals) or that you simply figure out when you sit down at an organ (pushing a rocker tab activates a stop). So, I'm having trouble citing these things: if Gleason, who starts at the absolute beginning of organ technique, doesn't mention what a Roman numeral on a stop knob indicates, who does? I'm not trying to find excuses to get the article to pass, far from it! I just want to know if anyone has any idea where to find a reliable reference (preferably in print) for these basic sorts of things. —Cor anglais 16 01:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The examples you've mentioned are classic examples of what are unquestionable facts, which are known by every organist, or can be obviously discovered by anyone who sits at the instrument. However, they appear here as if they are unreliable, or even original research, because nobody bothers to write about them. This is part of the reason why some of the dubious links (mentioned further above) are being used, because they appear to be the only ones (especially the glossaries of basic organ terminology). More in depth studies of the organ/organ building (for example the Cambridge Companion to the Organ) overlook these trivial points. It's annoying that we may have to remove some of these, purely for being the first encyclopaedia that bothers to write about them! That said, we'll keep looking.–MDCollins (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerning Roman numerals, I tried searching over Google Books and it does bring up a few places from which, I believe, one can salvage a half-decent reference. No? --Jashiin (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP term for this is Subject-specific common knowledge which, contrary to what many reviewers who should know better believe, does not need to be cited. Johnbod (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not know about this policy before, but it seems to make a lot of sense. Note the qualifier that the knowledge must be possessed by laypersons: this would indicate that the way a stop knob or rocker tab operates an electric circuit is common knowledge, but that the Roman numeral indications on mixture labels are not. —Cor anglais 16 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly - the policy text implies that the ones who need to know include the somewhat enigmatic category of 'laypersons familiar with the topic', which might well be covered by what is known to "every organist, or can be obviously discovered by anyone who sits at the instrument" (from above). Personally I would not call for a ref on the Roman numerals, though are there not how-to books that cover this? Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jashiin's Google Books search did indeed turn up a fine reference for Roman numerals, and I have used it to replace the current reference, which is less official. However, I would argue that, per When to cite, citing something like this (and some other things in the article as well) likely is not necessary. All challengeable facts should be cited, but not every single sentence is challengeable. Citing every sentence is a bit too much. —Cor anglais 16 01:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Many good points by others above. I think the article is nearly there, but needs a liitle more. Whilst many of the "fact" tags should just be removed per my comment just above, the article does need some more citations. One example:"In England, existing pipe organs were destroyed during the English Reformation of the sixteenth century and the Commonwealth period"
 * "The console is either built into the organ case, or "detached".[citation needed] " Does not need a citation, imo, but that only electrically controlled consoles can be detatched should be added, however obvious (and in fact said in the "Action" section I see).
 * "With the notable exception of Johann Sebastian Bach, few composers who have contributed extensively to the organ repertoire are well-known except for their organ music" - Handel, Couperin, Messiaen? It might be better to say, pre-piano, that the division is between keyboard & non-keyboard composers.
 * Regardless of its accuracy "The organ music of Johann Sebastian Bach fused characteristics of every national tradition and historical style in his large-scale preludes and fugues and chorale-based works" seems inadequate as a single sentence in which to sum up Bach's contribution.
 * "Organ music was seldom written in the Classical era, as composers preferred the piano with its ability to create dynamics" Hmm. The true pianoforte was hardly available to Classical composers. It surely has more to do with more people having keyboards at home, spending less time in church, the increased market for printed scores for amateurs & so on. The harpsicord already had the organ licked, no? More on the social context of organ performances would be welcome - when did recitals in churches begin?
 * The mighty Wurlitzer & its competitors surely deserve a paragraph? Popular organ music & the electronic organ are mentioned in the lead, but not followed up.
 * Something should surely be said about the accompaniment of hymn-singing since, if not very exciting for the organist, that is what most of the pipe-organs in the world were primarily built for. In general, the spread of organs, obviously a huge & complex topic, is not much mentioned. When did having an organ become the natural choice for a new church of any size? Did all the post Great-Fire London churches have them from the start, for example?
 * In the same vein, a mention of the placement of organs in churches, old & new, might be made.


 * Comment Something should surely be said about the accompaniment of hymn-singing since, if not very exciting for the organist, that is what most of the pipe-organs in the world were primarily built for. Well, they were also for improvisation in the Catholic liturgy. This became quite important, and is specially mentioned in a document from the Congregation of Rites from 1967 called Musicam Sacram (67). This document follows on from Vatican II, which itself singled out the instrument in Sacrosanctum  Concilium (1963): In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument, and one that adds a wonderful splendour to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to heavenly things. (120) My knowledge of this aspect starts from a fragment of a television series Derek Bailey made on improvisation, in which he features Naji Hakim. It's available on UbuWeb (On the Edge,  30 mins. into part 1 of the series), both Bailey and Hakim have one or two interesting things to say on the history and practice, and it's a must for pipe organ nerds everywhere. 86.44.17.5 (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing note: there are a significant number of issues to be worked out still, including reliable sources, citations, prose and content. The tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 can be used to locate volunteers, as well as to invite editors providing feedback here, to work on article improvements through a peer review.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.