Template:Did you know nominations/Contrabass trombone

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Contrabass trombone

Contrabass trombone in F with valves in D and B♭
Contrabass trombone in F with valves in D and B♭

Improved to Good Article status by Jonathanischoice (talk). Self-nominated at 10:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Contrabass trombone; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - n (1) the hook is not cited in the article, i.e., It has also enjoyed a revival particularly in film and video game soundtracks, due to the influence of Los Angeles session players Phil Teele, Bill Reichenbach, Bob Sanders and others.. (2) You provided a thesis as your reference can you indicate the page
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The hook is not included in the article, namely the 1990s mention. The article state it is the late 1980s, amend in the article or the hook with references

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed
    : Yes
  • Used in article: Yes
  • Clear at 100px: No - n, I suggest rotating the image by 90 degress so it will appear nicely on the main page. You can just upload a rotated version to commons and replace the current one
QPQ: Done.

Overall: see above FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  • I can’t say that I’m a fan of rotating the image. It’s fine the way it is; can’t spot the problem. Schwede66 21:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jonathanischoice: have a look through the archive and make decision for yourself about the image, here for example Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/January. It is a suggestion after all FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I really know what y'all are talking about, to be honest; I haven't had time to get my head around the requirements so I might just stick to editing rather than DYK noms for now :) — Jon (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe more importantly, you should say here what you said in your edit summary, given that it's a direct response to a concern voiced above that you've now addressed: update citation to be the same as that in the article. The hook has also been updated, so there's now alignment between hook and article. Schwede66 23:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: is this okay now for you to re-review? — Jon (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
looks good. @Jonathanischoice: Thanks for improving the article to GA and the DYK nomination. Please don’t be discouraged, we all need to start somewhere. I’m too still feeling my way around here and seasoned editor like @Schwede66: will always try to help. Anyway, stay safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your nice words, FuzzyMagma. Could you please explicitly state whether or not you are happy with the image as is? It'll help the promoter make a choice. Schwede66 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
looks good including the picture, as per discussion. if the promoter agrees with my suggestion, I have already uploaded a rotate version here
Contrabass trombone in F with valves in D and B♭
Contrabass trombone in F with valves in D and B♭
FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need to rotate the image either, especially as it will be too long vertically and need the upright parameter, but if you're going to fail it otherwise then go ahead. — Jon (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jonathanischoice: it passed, I should let y'all know that in general, it's best to leave initial reviews as-is, so that promoters know what went down at a glance when trying to close up a nom. Many thanks! FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jonathanischoice and FuzzyMagma: I think the original concern was lost in the discussion about the image. As things stand, the hook says 1980s, the article says 1990s, and the source doesn't mention either date. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
hmmm, @
WP:OR
. I assumed good faith which started to wither.
The thesis does not mention your hook neither the infromaion in the article as this wording of It has also enjoyed a revival particularly in film and video game soundtracks is very ambiguous, i.e., "it also" can maen "the 1980s" which is not true or in general or currently which is true (see page 48) . Can you please propose alternative hooks (please do not amend the original hook):
ALT1: * ... that the contrabass trombone (pictured) has experienced a recent revival in film and video game soundtracks? (although when I want to check what "recently" or "currently" entails in ref. 68 in a thesis that uses Harvard style in Bibliography section which is just odd!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyMagma (talkcontribs) 09:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You know what? Feel free to make up your own hook; I'm not sure what you're accusing me of. I thought the "hook" was supposed to be a sentence out of the article? If you want a sentence from one of the sources, then that's a different requirement, but either way it's not well documented. What exactly is the source for, when we are pointing the reader at articles full of sources anyway? I'd actually prefer not to be involved at this point, this is just weird. — Jon (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're feeling under attack; we're just trying to work with you to create a hook that meets the DYK criteria. If errors are spotted at a later stage, there's a good chance that the hook will be pulled before it's had its run on the Main Page, and then your work won't get the exposure it deserves. It's better all round to make sure the hook is airtight before it goes live.
What we're looking at here is rule 3 at
WP:DYKCRIT, which says that each fact in the hook should be supported in the article by an inline citation. The source you provided supports the part about "experienced a revival in film and video game soundtracks", but doesn't support "since the late 1980s". As I mentioned above, the article in fact says "since the late 1990s"; one of these is presumably a typo, but we (FuzzyMagma and I) are unable to correct this because we don't know which source you got the information from. I'm sure you'll understand that it's not reasonable to place the burden of finding sources on the DYK reviewer; you know better than we do where you found this information. All you need to do right now is to add another footnote to the relevant sentence in the article, so that every part of the hook fact is fully supported. Otherwise, you can propose another hook, or work with FuzzyMagma on ALT1. Or you can of course withdraw the nomination, but it would be a shame to do so when the problem is so easily resolvable. Sojourner in the earth (talk
) 07:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I striked through a sentence that won't help in anyway. Sorry @Jonathanischoice: if you felt I am accusing you of anything, but I cannot find the source of your hook FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It works without the word "recent" anyway, since full orchestra video game soundtracks are a fairly recent phenomenon. I don't get the ALT1 business, do I amend it or make a new one? I don't know. — Jon (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
make a new one and reference it and called it ALT2, and so on FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the

. Retrieved 21 April 2022.

works for me. Referenced and can be inferred from the article FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)