Talk:Ophicleide/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Ophicleide/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Ophicleide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|Jonathanischoice}} 00:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The article could, and arguably should, be given a quick fail, criterion 3 for which is {{green|It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include ... large numbers of {{citation needed}}}}. Citation needed tags are called for in the 5th, 6th and 7th paras of History, the 1st and 2nd of Construction, the 3rd of Performance and the 2nd of Repertoire.

I found this an interesting and well-researched article, and although the clunky tabloidese false titles ("by French instrument maker Jean Hilaire Asté", "Newsletter editor Paul Schmidt" etc) are obtrusive, that is a stylistic matter that does not affect the eligibility of the article for GA.

I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you a chance to attend to the missing citations. Tim riley talk 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, thanks for starting the article review. I've gone through and added citations to the unreferenced paragraphs as you pointed out, and expanded the modern repertoire a little (mainly about the Sydney Ophicleide Quartet and recent composers and commissions), and a couple of minor corrections around Sam Hughes and choro music. — Jon (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

That was quick work! All the referencing now evidently in order. The article seems to me to meet all six GA criteria (though it would be presumptuous of me to pronounce on whether it addresses all the main aspects of the topic or on how neutral it is: to my layman's eye it has every appearance of thoroughness and balance).

I am not conscious of ever having heard the instrument played, and have dug out a recording of Glinka's Trio pathétique in D minor, which is charming – a real foot-tapper of a finale. Thank you for turning my attention in that direction.

Meanwhile, promoting to GA. (Are you sure I can't persuade you to heal the bruising false titles?)

: Hi Tim – thanks for the quick review. I'll certainly try fixing up the false titles (I didn't even know that was a thing!) here and in other articles where I've been using that style. For a good listen, both Nick Byrne and Patrick Wibart are phenomenal players, and their CDs seem to be on YouTube, e.g. Wibart's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWDq-vwYOSQ&list=PLBvvJSmvUZZ_miqnAVfPy69ArXcqL5gZH Virtuoso Ophicleide] (2015). — Jon (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?
2. :A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|y}}
3. :: {{#if:||}}
4. :B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: {{GAList/check|y}}
5. :: {{#if:||}}
6. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
7. :A. References to sources: {{GAList/check|y}}
8. :: {{#if:Well referenced.|Well referenced.|}}
9. :B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|y}}
10. :: {{#if:Well referenced.|Well referenced.|}}
11. :C. No original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
12. :: {{#if:||}}
13. Is it broad in its coverage?
14. :A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|y}}
15. :: {{#if:||}}
16. :B. Focused: {{GAList/check|y}}
17. :: {{#if:||}}
18. Is it neutral?
19. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
20. :: {{#if:||}}
21. Is it stable?
22. : No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|y}}
23. :: {{#if:||}}
24. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
25. :A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{GAList/check|y}}
26. :: {{#if:Well illustrated.|Well illustrated.|}}
27. :B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
28. :: {{#if:Well illustrated.|Well illustrated.|}}
29. Overall:
30. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
31. :: {{#if:||}}