Talk:Piano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Piano was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 21, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Musical Instruments (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

How to handle global "additional citations needed" tag and referencing for Piano?[edit]

There's currently an "additional citations needed" tag covering the entire article. Meanwhile, there are numerous inline citations, a Bibliography section, and a Notes section indicating several additional reference sources. Some sections are better sourced than others, and there are a few inline citation needed tags.

The problem with sourcing this article in particular is the amount of technical and historical detail it contains. Depending on how rigorous the approach, some sections would be overrun by inline citations added to practically every sentence. Also, likely there would be a fair number of instances of citing the same source multiple times.

There is guidance in Wikipedia:Citing sources. Some possible solutions that can be used in combination:

  • Updating the Bibliography with notes per book indicating which areas of the article it covers.
  • Marking sections with little or no sourcing with "citations needed" tag.
  • Indicating all individual items that need citing with incline "citation needed" tags.

(My particular concern is with the global "citations needed" tag, which we can hopefully remove. Tags that cover entire articles may diminish the apparent value of the article, and in this case, it seems pretty clear that, overall, the article is verifiable via inline citations and bibliography.)

Ideas? Suggestions? --Tsavage (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find umbrella "citations needed" tags on long article like this completely useless. Tagging specific statements needing citations is more helpful—even essential in this case. This is according to what your are citing from the "citing sources" guideline.
In addition, I am totally confused here by that section marked "Notes". There are already "notes" as inline citations (let us call these "notes1"), and the content of this second section looks like "Further reading" to me (let us call these "notes2"). They are bibliography style entries, not annotations of particular statements in the article. On the other hand, I have not checked the "Bibliography" items to discover whether they are sources actually cited in the notes1, or indeed whether any of the items in notes2 are cited in notes1. I think you can see why this confuses me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive input! :) I investigated further, and I believe progress has been made.
This is the where the References section was originally established, and it explains what is now under Notes, i.e. that they are general references for the article.
I created the Bibliography subhead to accommodate referring to different pages of the same book in different citations (and I left one book duplicated in Notes because it wasn't clear what Notes was). I guess that heading was unnecessary and redundant under References.
Given that Notes is now general reference, it seems that Further reading may be just that (can ask original editor User:Opus33).
I've adjusted the article accordingly as follows:
  • removed Bibliography subhead (unnecessary in References section)
  • renamed Notes section to General (General references) and restored the original note "Most of the information in this article can be found in the following published works:" (per [1])
  • I restored Encyclopedia Britannica to the General list as it was there originally. (Does "most of the info..." still apply if it is deleted?)
Comments? --Tsavage (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

General references:: Encyclopedia Britannica removed[edit]

Removed Encyclopedia Britannica from the References > General section as a less than reliable source, and let stand the statement: "Most of the information in this article can be found in the following published works:" Considering that the four remaining works are described by the original editor as, respectively:

  • "a standard reference on the history of the piano"
  • "an authoritative work covering the ancestry of the piano, its invention by Cristofori, and the early stages of its subsequent evolution"
  • "contains a wealth of information"
  • "gives the basics of how pianos work, and a thorough evaluative survey of current pianos and their manufacturers"

it seems reasonable to assume that most of the information in the article can still be found in these remaining books listed under General references. --Tsavage (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)