Talk:Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 18:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm happy to start reviewing this article using the table below. Comments to follow soon! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 18:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Kavyansh, thank you for all your work on this article. I very much enjoyed reading it! Only a few minor comments in the table below. Do let me know if you have any questions or if I've misunderstood anything. Many thanks Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 16:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, @Unexpectedlydian. I have addressed the concerns. Don't know whether it is a coincident or not, but List of marches by John Philip Sousa is today's featured list! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

    Great work, happy to promote to GA now. And congratulations on the featured list, very impressive! Thank you for your dedication to Sousa and related topics Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 19:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lead All good. Background All good. History "The new march saluted Shriners", but was specifically dedicated to the Almas Temple and the AAONMS. A minor point, but could you define "Shriners"? Are they just members of the AAONMS? It can be used for both, the members and the AAONMS. I added a link to the term. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Instrumentation Do we know the original instrumentation of the march? If not, is Philip Sparke's version the most commonly-used arrangement? We don't know the original instrumentation, but Sparke, according to the source, made several notable changes and "uses standard symphonic band instrumentation and simplifies some of the scoring from the original work by Sousa". Basically a simplified modern version. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sections No problems. Layout History I wonder if we can separate out the content into a separate subheading titled something like "Performance"? The following text isn't strictly about composition and analysis and may be better suited in a "Performance" section: The march was first conducted during the Shriners' National Convention in Washington, D.C., in June 1923. At the Griffith Stadium, Sousa conducted a band of around 6,200 members—the largest he had ever conducted. Sousa was wearing navy-blue uniform and a red Almas Shrine fez. He conducted the march twice before conducting "The Thunderer". Various Shriners accompanied Sousa during his tours, and during the later years of Sousa's band, the majority of his members were Shriners. Contemporary versions of the march by the Ottoman military band also use the Jingling Johnny with the fortissimo. Yes, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC) "Instrumentation" is its own subheading, but should it come under "Composition and analysis"? Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Words to watch No words to watch identified. Fiction N/A List incorporation Instrumentation list is appropriately handled.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All sources are in the appropriate section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Source check American National Biography All good White, 2009 All good. Ladd, 2014 General comment: This seems to be a master's thesis which, according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, should only be used if they have been proved to have had considerable influence. I don't know if this thesis has? Nonetheless, because the thesis is an analysis of a historic work—not a scientific work—and has been supervised by a relevant academic, I will give it the benefit of the doubt on simple factual statements. However, the use of a direct quote from Ladd (alongside the academic institution) gives the impression that this is the opinion of a recognised musicologist. Could we remove the quote? A Google search of Adam Richard Ladd doesn't bring up anything relevant to the author, so I definitely don't think he should be red-linked. Both the points addressed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Birley, 2006 All good. United States Marine Band All good. Bierley, 1984 All good. Dugan, 2018 All good. United States Marine Band, 2020 A Jingling Johnny bell tower is also added, which is played to "bring home the exotic character" of the march. As this is a direct quote, an attribution should be added to the text. Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Statements are appropriately backed up by citations, content that there has been no research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio brings up example of quotation and proper attribution. No other concerns raised during spot-checks.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This is a short article, but it covers the main and appropriate aspects of a piece of music: background, composition, analysis, and performances. I think the infobox could be expanded to include more information, e.g. the form (march), and details of the premiere. Sure, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, it's a relatively short article but definitely is focussed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Short edit history, full of constructive edits, no evidence of edit-warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Both images are tagged with copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images have suitable captions. Both need alt descriptions. Not much to add in the ALT, so I wrote "Refer to the caption", which is the standard practice in these cases. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.