Wikipedia:Peer review/Pipe organ/archive2

Pipe organ
This peer review discussion has been closed. Request peer review for eventual FA nomination. Here are links to the previous peer review and the archived featured article nomination. WikiProject PipeOrgan would like to get the article to featured status in time to list it on the front page for the International Day of the Organ on October 19, 2008. Thanks! —Cor anglais 16 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a diagram (or two) of the basics of mechanical operation of an organ would be helpful - perhaps Lady of Hats or someone else good at graphics could help?
 * Organ pipe voicing, linked as "voiced" is a red link. For FAC I would write a short article or at least provide some brief explanation in the text. Done
 * The construction section is very clear, but would it help to have an introductory paragraph before the Pipes section that described each part of the organ in a sentence or two? Something like A pipe organ is composed of several parts. The pipes produce sound in two different ways, when air (wind) is forced through them. The pipes are organized in groups called ranks and the wind to them is produced by the wind system. The action controls both individual pipes (key action) and ranks (stop action), and can be mechanical or electrical or both. The organist controls ranks of pipes via stops, and individual pipes via the console, which contains the various keyboards, as well as... You get the idea (and I am at my limit of understanding) Done
 * I think most of the Construction section is a model of clarity, but I just don't get this sentence A common electrical stop control is the rocker tab, which sits on a hinge and activates an electrical circuit when pressed. Am I trying to make this more complicated than it is (is it just describing an electrical switch)? Done
 * Add a word here All organs have at least one manual, and most [also] have a pedalboard. Done
 * Is it worth repeating in the keyboards section that a division is a group of ranks (I had to go back and look up what it was)? Done
 * Perhaps this could be made clearer (suggestions in brackets): (for example, the "Swell super-octave to Great," which adds to the Great [division] the ranks of the Swell division[,] an octave above what is being played on the Great manual).[31] Done
 * History - is the organ thought to descend in any way from mouth blown instruments like the pan pipe? I know, WP:NOR.
 * Update: This is not the case as far as I know of... Ctesibius's hydraulis is considered the earliest precursor of the pipe organ. —Cor anglais 16 15:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In Renaissance and Baroque periods link Silbermann at the first mention (now linked at second) Done
 * Repertoire section is underreferenced, citation needed tags will have to be cleaned up before FAC. Done
 * FAC might have trouble with Encylopedia Brittanica as a reference.
 * Update: Grove doesn't provide this information, so I propose we keep it for now and see what happens… —Cor anglais 16 05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No mention of circus organs, calliopes, carousels?
 * Most of this is fairly nit-picky, seems close to FA to me (refs in the last section biggest hurdle)


 * Thanks so much for your input! I have addressed a few of these issues and marked them with ✅ ; I'll get to the others in a few days. —Cor anglais 16 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ruhrfisch that the repertoire section is woefully undercited and needs expansion. The rest of the article looks quite good on a casual glance. The article as a whole seems to focus overwhelmingly on how pipe organs work mechanically, but how they've fit into cultures and societies is just as relevant, and includes more than just repertoire. I'd suggest moving much of the content to a subarticle, something like construction of pipe organs and leaving a summary here that would allow for more room to expand other sections. That subarticle would be very FAC-worthy, I feel. Tuf-Kat (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from I've just looked at sources, not prose. (April 12, 2008)
 * The foreign language websites should have the language given in the footnotes. Done
 * Likewise the non-html format sites, so folks know it is a .pdf or somesuch they are going to. Done
 * What makes http://www.nzorgan.com/vandr/manda.htm a reliable site? Needs publisher information also Replaced with verifiable ref
 * What makes http://www.concertartist.info/organhistory/begin.htm a reliable site? They don't give sources for their information. Needs publisher information also. Replaced with verifiable ref
 * Reading http://www.answers.com/topic/pull-out-all-the-stops ... I can't tell where Answers.com got their information. I think it's from the source you're quoting, but the way you word the footnote, it implies that Answers.com is put out by the Book of Idioms... Citation rewritten to clarify origin of information
 * http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/events/tours/germany_2006/day9.shtml is lacking publisher information Done
 * Likewise http://www.usna.edu/Music/Accessable/organ.html Done
 * And http://www.crumhorn-labs.com/Documentation/CurrentUserGuide/HTML/HauptwerkInstallUserGuideFiles/TourOfAPipeOrgan.html Done
 * And http://organ.wicks.com/display_page?p=290&o=8 Done
 * And http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=o&p=6 and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=organum&searchmode=none Done
 * http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-53782/keyboard-instrument is a subscription site, should state that. Also, this is a very marginal source for FAC. Done, though reference kept for the moment
 * http://www.lawrencephelps.com/Documents/Articles/Phelps/abrieflook.shtml lacking publisher information Done
 * LIkewise http://copenhagenet.dk/CPH-Roskilde.htm Done