User:CBFraoch/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Shakuhachi

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I am interested in Japanese traditional music and have learned a bit about it when teaching world music courses. I know something about the shakuhachi, but not very much.

Evaluate the article

Lead section

The lead section does start with an introductory sentence that defines the instrument. However, the remainder of the lead section gives too much attention to the instrument's history (information that could be left to the history section) and does not provide an overview of the article's major sections. It is overly detailed. The sentence about being based on the pentatonic scale should be moved to either the "overview" section or the section on "acoustics."

Content

The article content is all relevant to the shakuhachi, but there is a disproportionate amount of attention given to its appearance in pop culture (e.g., its appearance in films, jazz, and western contemporary music, as well as a long list of recordings that use synthesized shakuhachi sounds). Within sections, western examples are specified whereas traditional Japanese examples are not. For example, the first shakuhachi recording in the United States is named, but not the first in Japan. The first non-Japanese person to become a shakuhachi master is named but no Japanese masters are named.

Meanwhile, there is a lot more that could be said about shakuhachi repertoire, learning and transmission, and contemporary practices in Japan. Aside from popular culture, the focus of the article is on the instrument's physical construction and playing technique and its history. Its contemporary cultural context is largely ignored. The article's history tab indicates that the article has been consistently edited over the years, and several sources cited date from within the last five years. The article addresses an underrepresented topic (traditional music) related to an historically underrepresented population (Asian peoples/cultures).

Tone and Balance

Overall, there is a neutral point of view. However, the emphasis on western examples and pop culture, as noted above, suggest a western viewpoint and bias.

Sources and References

There are some real problems with sources and references. Few scholarly sources are referenced. Google Scholar, however, indicates that there is extensive scholarship on the shakuhachi that could be referenced. Consulting these sources would almost certainly result in the addition of new sections to this article, as well as the expansion and improvement of the existing sections. Many paragraphs in the history section don't offer a single citation. Sources are reasonably current and a number of Japanese authors and organizations are cited. I checked a few links in the reference list and they all worked.

Organization and writing quality

The writing is fine. The structure of the article should be reconsidered with some sections renamed and others added (as noted under "content," above). For example, the section entitled "overview" could be renamed "construction and playing technique" to be clearer and more specific (after all, "overview" could just as easily refer to the instrument's history or its cultural context). The section on "acoustics" would make more sense if it were placed after the "overview" section (given its emphasis on playing techniques) and probably could be incorporated into this section (which could perhaps be further subdivided into "instrument construction," "playing techniques," and "acoustics"). As noted above, additional sections are warranted. I didn't read the article carefully, but no grammar or spelling errors stood out.

Images and Media

Several images are included in the article, and they are useful. They include images of the instrument itself, of people playing the instrument, and of notation. All the images have helpful captions and appear to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion

This article is part of two WikiProjects: Japan, and Musical Instruments. In both cases, it is rated a C-class article. It is ranked mid-importance for Japan and low-importance for Musical Instruments.

A lot of the Talk page discussion focuses on relatively minor details, such as the pronunciation guide, notation fonts, and notes about details that contributors feel should be added or removed. I don't know why a few of the suggested edits weren't simply implemented (e.g., the very reasonable suggestion that "professional players" be replaced by "skilled players"). One person does question why the "synthesized shakuhachi" section is so dominant. I liked what one editor did -- they removed a controversial section but copied it into the talk page so that it could be reintroduced to the main page if an appropriate citation could be found. In general, there's a lack of attention to the overall article and a lack of attention to missing information and source quality.

Overall impressions

The article's status, according to the two WikiProjects of which it is a part, is C-class. That seems fair to me. When I first looked at the article, it seemed fairly long and I got the impression that it offered a fair bit of information. But after doing a careful analysis, I see how incomplete it actually is. The best section is the one currently called "overview," which is detailed with sources cited. The "history" section is reasonably developed but lacks citations. There is too much focus on the shakuhachi outside of Japan and its traditional contexts, particularly its appearance in western and popular culture contexts. Overall, I would say that this article is considerably underdeveloped.