Talk:Monotron

Did you know nomination

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) 21:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the "FrankenSynth" is a heavily modified Korg Monotron? Source: http://ask.audio/articles/this-frankensynth-is-actually-a-heavily-modded-korg-monotron
  • ALT1: ... that the Korg Monotron was the company's first analogue synthesizer in over two decades? Source: https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/korg-monotron-262689

• ALT2: ... that the "FrankenSynth", named by Ask.Audio, is a heavily modified Monotron synthesizer? Source: http://ask.audio/articles/this-frankensynth-is-actually-a-heavily-modded-korg-monotron

• • ALT3: ... that the Korg Monotron was the audio technology company's first analogue synthesizer in over two decades? Source: https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/korg-monotron-262689
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I believe this is my last time I don't need a QPQ

Converted from a redirect by Schminnte (talk). Self-nominated at 02:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC).

• The article does appear to meet DYK requirements and the hooks are cited inline and verified. I didn't find any close paraphrasing. A QPQ is not required. I'm not really a big fan of either hook since they seem to be reliant on knowing what Korg is. Neither hook seems to be that intriguing unless you're familiar with the brand. Perhaps other alternative hooks or hook angles can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I've added two new hooks which are variations of the originals. Please check them out. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: Thank you for the suggestions. I've checked all the sources in the article; however, only the Ask.Audio source actually calls the synth the "FrankenSynth", and while the other two sources do discuss it, they don't use that name. Was "FrankenSynth" the name given by the creator, or is it Ask.Audio's creation? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5: the ask.audio source is the only one yes. I think the term was created by them. If this is a problem, we could go with ALT3 instead? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: I'm afraid not, as ALT3 doesn't address my original concerns about intriguingness to a non-specialist audience. What I could suggest is making a new version of ALT2 that attributes the nickname to Ask.Audio. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I've updated alt2, will that do? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the wordings I was thinking about were something like this:

ALT2a ... that a heavily modified Monotron synthesizer was nicknamed "FrankenSynth" by Ask.Audio?

ALT2b ... that a heavily modified Monotron synthesizer was nicknamed "FrankenSynth" by music resource site Ask.Audio?

How do these sound? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5: Nice, I'm fine with those. I prefer alt2a. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose those work. Leaving the final choice to the promoter (I'm more partial to ALT2b since it doesn't seem that Ask.Audio is a well-known site and I think it needs context). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monotron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 05:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: hi, I thought I'd return the favour and review this article for you :) I'll get started either tonight or (more likely) tomorrow evening (NZST), and leave comments in the template below. Cheers! — Jon (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jon! I'll eagerly await your review :) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Just quickly, I took the liberty of expanding the Wikidata item a bit and connecting it to the Commons category, which gets a free infobox. Speaking of infoboxes, it's not a GA requirement but I wonder if this article might benefit from {{Infobox synthesizer}}? Anyway, proper comments when I get time later. — Jon (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I was not going to add an infobox because it's a series. I thought it might be misleading to add an infobox for only one synth in the series. I appreciate the usefulness of infoboxes, but I don't add them when they won't add anything not in the lede/will just confuse things. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've been a bit preoccupied this week, but I've reviewed 5 and 6 below; I hope to finish reviewing at the weekend.—Jon (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jon. It's fine, take your time. This time of year seems to be busy for everyone. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

General comments first

@Schminnte: I've put a list of comments here in a separate section, and then I'll re-assess remaining criteria afterwards (rather than trying to match each point with a criterion). I should also stress that I think this article is very good, well researched and presented, and I suspect I'm basically nit-picking at this point...! — Jon (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Lead: If it is stylised all lower-case as "monotron", then we could use {{Lowercase title}} (although it is upper-cased "Monotron" throughout the article?)

   Not needed, agreed. — Jon (talk)

2. Lead: "analogue revival" could link to Synthesizer#1990s–present: Software synthesizers and analog revival (bonus points: create analog revival/analogue revival redirects to a Synthesizer#Analog revival anchor, for better stability of section heading name)
3. § Monotron: introduce Musikmesse, e.g. something like "the German annual music expo Musikmesse"
4. § Design: MS-10 should be linked (it is linked further on, in § Reception)
5. § Reception: introduce MusicRadar, e.g. "the online music magazine MusicRadar"; similarly Make magazine, and Electronic Musician

   Happy to accept as edited. — Jon (talk)

6. § Monotron Delay: introduce NAMM Show
7. § Use in music: introduce "Dutch producer" Martijn Deijkers, RAC, "Canadian composer" Andrew Noseworthy
8. § Sources: we can surround the list with {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} to make them the same smaller text used by §Citations.
9. § External links: since Wikidata is set up correctly, we only need to use {{Commons-inline}} and {{Official website}} with no parameters.

@ Jon: All should now be done, apart from two things. 1. In this case, "Stylised in lowercase" is a way to show that Korg themselves styles it that way. However, almost all other coverage uses a capital letter, so that's why it's like that. 2. I found that putting the title in for Make and Electronic Musican was too clunky. I hope you understand. All other points, including the one on schematics are done. Is it OK to pass now? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, this all looks good! — Jon (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Review summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   I have not found any issues here - it is well written and clear.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I have not found significant MOS issues in the lead, layout or instances of watch-words (n.a. fiction and lists)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   This is generally good, and the references support the content well. In some places however I think there is an over-use of references. For instance, we don't need three references mid-sentence to establish the fact that it was announced in 2010 at Musikmesse (one of which is missing a lang parameter to indicate it is in Spanish); one will suffice (§ Monotron). Similarly, three refs to say that the VCF is the same one used in the MS-10 and MS-20 (§ Design); two to support that the Duo was exhibited at NAMM; and so on. If extra references are not being re-used elsewhere, consider adding them to the External links section instead (or stashing them on the talk page for later).

   I usually use two references when they are available. The Future Music reference has been removed but I think the others are fine. WP:CITEOVERKILL says it's a problem when there's more than 3 references.

   Accepted; I should state that I did not have a problem with the Spanish article per se, just that I (incorrectly) thought it did not have a language param in the ref to say it was in Spanish.

   There is some over-linking in the references themselves too; when linking the work or publisher (e.g. Sound on Sound) it is only necessary to link the first occurrence in a reference, in keeping with MOS linking.

   I would disagree. WP:REPEATLINK says ...there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article.

   Fair enough, missed that.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Excellent use of well-known and authoritative resources throughout; opinions and quotations are clearly linked to published reviews or other sources, and there's nothing contentious or counter-intuitive to be concerned with for 2b.

   Not required for GA, but perhaps we can provide the escholarship URL for the concerto?

   Linked

   c. (OR):

   Satisfactory

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I have not found any close paraphrasing in a sample of sources (though I have not checked every single one); the copyvio report lists a couple of sources at > 20% but that is due to (correctly referenced) quotations of text from the source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   I am satisfied this article meets 3a.

   b. (focused):

   The point about published schematics and labelled PCB solder points is repeated four times in the §Modifications section.

   Could you explain what you mean? I only see that the first paragraph in §Modifications discusses the schematics. I see the second paragraph as expanding on that point.

   The second quote is good but also repeats the point made in the first; it could stand on its own without its last sentence, since we've already established that earlier, and then reword the quote's introduction, e.g. the sentence He believed that the Monotron being used for modifications was a by-product of the synthesiser's analogue circuits... could be something like "While acknowledging that the labeling and schematics helped, he believed that the Monotron being used for modifications was also a by-product of..."

   Looks good now :)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Excellent, I think this is well handled, combined with good use of a variety of reviews and industry sources.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article has not suffered from any disputes; it is too new to have much in the talk page, and the history appears to be free of conflicts.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All images have copyright tags or non-free rationale tags (pass). Furthermore, images are all either CC-licensed and uploaded by users or imported from Flickr, or do not qualify for copyright (KORG logo image), which will be useful for Feature Article status later.

   Suggestion: it would be neat to include a sound sample in the appropriate place, e.g. the two sounds already on Commons that relate to the Delay and Duo models.

   I considered this (I uploaded the samples!) but realized that it would be sandwiching the text. I preferred to link the category instead.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All captions are succinct and appropriate, and images relate to the discussion presented. Two captions have full-stops because they are sentences (otherwise they are not needed).

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above 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.