Talk:Jazz drumming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Jazz drumming was a nominee for Arts good article, 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.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Review for WP:GAN

Okay, off the bat, I see that the lead section is way too short, only being two short paragraphs. Try and get it to be at least three paragraphs (but not more than four). — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There must be a lot more clarification about the terminology, as it is not clarified in the article. Phrases like "The Charleston", "syncopation" and "non-syncopation" are not explained in this article. Although "syncopation" is wikilinked, it should be defined in the article itself. I am confused as to what a "clave" is, and you should provide specific examples. From the definition given, I believe "Take Five" is an example of a clave, as it goes "1-2-3 1-2". "Clave" should be given a separate section, as it seems to be a very important part of jazz drumming. An infobox would be very nice, but if you can't find one, you can either make one or leave it as it is. The sound preview is a very good addition to the article. I feel that this article is not yet ready for good article status. Perhaps you should hold peer reviews for this article. — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to the article and the GA review:
  • "Drum set" should not be pluralized in the lead section. You did not change "percussion" to "percussions"; "drum set" should be treated in the same way.
I put "the" in front of "drum set" to make it sound a bit better
  • "Clave" should not be pluralized either. I changed it to "the clave", which might make it more easily understandable.
  • I have expanded the lead section per your recommendation and moved clave to a separate section.
Alright, that sounds good.
  • I am not quite sure what an infobox for this article might include, and related articles like jazz piano and jazz guitar do not include one. Could you provide some suggestions?
  • I added a link to "back beat" in the section about syncopated beats, which may help with clarification.
  • "The Charleston" is explained in a sentence immediately following its mention.
I am a musician, and that sentence sounds a bit confusing to me. I think you should expand on what "one clave variation" means.
  • Which aspects of clave were you confused about? I need some specific guidance.
What exactly is a clave? I know it functions as a time tool, but is it a beat pattern of 1-2, 1-2-3 and 1-2-3, 1-2? — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 01:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kakofonous (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the clave section some more, but it still may need work. I think I fixed the sentence on "The Charleston", though. Kakofonous (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article has a lot of jargon. See WP:Explain jargon for details. — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 06:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to eliminate some of the vagueness there. Kakofonous (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is still uncertainty about some musical terms, perhaps it might be useful to create a glossary? Kakofonous (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. I don't think glossaries are appropriate. I'll clear up some jargon that I know. — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 18:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations improperly capitalized

I'm finding titles that are worded all lowercase. Please fix this. Remember that words like "in", "of", "and", "the", and "for" are not capitalized. — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GAN

As much as I wish I could pass this article, this is simply not ready for being a good article. I believe that the citations are improperly capitalized, there is a lot of jargon, and a bit disorganized as to the way it was written. I hope that when you nominate it in the future, it is of a better quality. Please do not take this as a personal attack. Please instead use this as a way to improve the article. — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, try and find more images to put in the beginning of the article. It would make the article's quality much better. — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing it

I wanted to look at it again, and I must congratulate you for making so many edits to Jazz drumming, Kakofonous. It looks much better now. I'd be ecstatic to see where it would be in a month! — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are still lots of places that badly need references. Sorry, but putting it up for GA again so soon after the last one seems a bit hopeful.--andreasegde (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have formatted the refs correctly.--andreasegde (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, there is no one correct method of formatting references in Wikipedia. I chose to use a particular method; in this case the APA citation style. Changing one type of external link to another does not necessarily make it better or worse, and everything I had done was, to my knowledge, within the style recommendations. Secondly, I fail to see what specific sections require the references that you are asking for. Many of the references apply to large sections, and at some points they are not needed, as I am not making controversial assertions or BLP claims. When this is done, the sources are cited. If you see a statement that should be cited, please either place a {{fact}} tag on it or mention it here on the talk page. Thirdly, the reference formatting that you have done has, regretfully, done more harm than good. The instance in which I cited the film Jazz, for instance, I was not describing it in the text, but merely verifying a statement I had made with information from that film. You also caused one of the references I had used (a PDF file about the history of Latin jazz) to disappear from the list of references. I think, while formatting, you may have mixed it up with another reference. Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well, one tries to do a good turn, and one's hand gets bitten. As this article failed its GAN very quickly, and very recently, I thought I was trying to help. That's the last you'll see of me. All you have to do is revert the article and you will be where you were, and then cross your fingers. Goodbye.--andreasegde (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the article's history, all I was trying to do was fix the citations that had become incorrect; I did not revert all the changes that you had made. I do not understand why this incivility is necessary; insulting me in your edit summary does not seem constructive. Best, Kakofonous (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You obviously like these tit-for-tats, but I don't. I was not being uncivil in the slightest, so don't try that old trick. I did not insult you in the edit summary, because there was nothing to read. I wish you the best. --andreasegde (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As for, "First of all, there is no one correct method of formatting references in Wikipedia", I refer the young person to his/her own comments on a review: "References need standard formatting." That is double-talk, and not to be respected. What a waste of time these little comments are, which is why this wil be the last. --andreasegde (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That particular comment, I believe, was to tell the article's nominator that the references within the article were not standard amongst each other—some were formatted one way, others in another way. I would also like to address the problem we've had here; if you do not wish to respond, you are not obliged to, as you have indicated above that you do not wish to do so. I admit that I probably responded in a way that could be taken harshly—if that is how you interpreted it, I apologize. I was merely trying to address the problems that you had created while editing in complete good faith, to improve the article. They were honest mistakes—I view and have always viewed them as such. If you believe I am trying to perpetuate a "tit-for-tat", that is not my intention; I am attempting to resolve a problem that got in the way of productive editing. We have communicated without incident in the past, when I notified you about a potential issue with using first names in an article that you had nominated at GAN. I hope that this does not create a large rift. Best, Kakofonous (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)