Instrument 1 has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 17, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Instrument 1 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 May 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst (
talk) 01:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Created by Schminnte ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Instrument 1; 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: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reviewer: Frzzl ( talk · contribs) 11:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Happy to review this article - I'll probably need 3-4 days to go through everything and do a first pass.
Frzzl
talk;
contribs 11:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Schminnte: - Alright, I've looked through the refs you changed and I' happy now, so I'll Pass the article. Congrats, and thanks; it was a pleasure to work with you! Frzzl talk; contribs 09:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
to realise this visionto something a bit less marketing-y?
To this end- S
The Instrument 1 was redesigned five times before its release- needs a citation. Not explicitly stated in the article, and the citations given only say that the final was the sixth prototype, not redesign.
with comments made on the device's versatility and realism.can be axed, is too detailed for the lead. Change to something like "The instrument was received positively by critics, with comparisons drawn to other electronic string instruments instruments such as ..."
The Instrument 1 was nominated for multiple awards- S
is the co-founder of Artiphon. Artiphon is...} - can this be changed to simply "is the co-founder of Artiphon, a Nashville-based..."? Flows much better
for the ideas of its user, saying in a conversation with Mic':'
this reads much better than the previous section, less to copyedit haha
The Kickstarter pitch focused on the versatility of the Instrument 1, describing how it could function as multiple instruments., make the next sentence
The campaign was launched with the following pitch:
The Instrument 1's relatively...to the end of the paragraph should go - a few reasons for this. 1) "relatively expensive" is subjective, so would need to be shown it's according to the article author's opinion, in relation to other controllers. It can be removed because you're talking about the same thing from the same article in the Reception section. The second sentence is using the same source as the ones above, so just shift the point of experiment-ability into one of those sentences.
other paragraph:
point was made of the Instrument 1's price point. According to Vice, this price allowed the Instrument->
The price of the Instrument 1 was also praised; according to Vice...
OK, I'll do some spotchecks, and then we can pass the article :D Frzzl talk; contribs 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I was a bit concerned at the issues I came up with, they need to be addressed before I can pass this. Refs I checked, as of rev 1170556175, bolded are problems: 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 27, 30, 33, 36, 44
Can you go through the places where you have 2+ refs put together and check that they're precise about what they're reffing. 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)