Template:Did you know nominations/Neo-Bechstein

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 Yoninah (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Neo-Bechstein

(

)

~~... that the Neo-Bechstein was a modified acoustic grand piano that was developed at the beginning of the 1930s at the Physical Institute of the Humboldt University of Berlin?~~
- ALT1:... that the Neo-Bechstein was an early electric piano that was designed by the Nobel Prize winner Walther Nernst, known for developing the Nernst equation, and Oskar Vierling, the physicist who during World War II designed weapons for the Wehrmacht at his own laboratory, Feuerstein Castle?
  - Whatever the result of the DYK-review might turn out to be, this is too poor prose and ridiculously long, to be accepted.∯WBG^converse 07:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Created by Scope creep (talk). Self-nominated at 03:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

Reviewing-∯WBG^converse 06:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

--

Plagiarisation and Close paraphrasing is very-evident.

semi-acoustic instrument, with the sound being generated in the traditional way by striking strings is copied in toto from the source.
Although having no sound board, it was much lighter is copied in toto from the source.

Original research

Usage of the words:-- micro-hammer, eighteen microphones et cetera.
Many lines are un-sourced. They are (probably) sourced in some of the references but as much as inline cites are not required, it's optimum to use them.

Prose form is quite poor.

The Construction section starts with:--The was semi-acoustic instrument which is meaningless.
The Marketing section again starts with:-- Bechstein reportedly built 150 copies of which exist today which is meaningless.The same can be said about the last line:-- and was restored in 2007 at the technical Museum Vienna ready to play and is used for concert purposes.
The entire paragraph reads like a marketing brochure of the piano (viz The stop has been refined by the micro pounding...., This avoids the knocking noise...... et al).A lot trivial details ( that typically hit the string at a force of 5%....) are noted.
Additionally, the term neo-petrof is used out of nowhere and is not even wiki-linked/ explained at a foot-note.

I have no idea about the 4th source.

This can be improved, quite a lot.Use the press-reviews and exploit the many rigorous sources which mention it, without getting bogged down into trivialities.And above all, copy-edit whatever you have written till now. (I will try to invest my own efforts, if possible:-) )
On a note, I have not even bothered to find out about QPQ:-)∯WBG^converse 07:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ∯WBG. That was bit of a wake up call. I never realised it was so bad. Thanks. Is it possible to take each in turn,

I can get rid of the plagiarism by rewording.
Regarding mirco hammer, I took this from the image, No. 5, mikrohammer. I thought that would be self evident. I have explained mechanics.
The stop has been refined by the micro pounding, technical detail of the first electric piano.
5% was what made it unique, and its mentioned in a few sources. Explained.

I have reordered it and tried to address the points raised. scope_creep (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

QPQ doesnt seem to apply, as this is my first DYK. scope_creep (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: @Scope creep: What is the status of this nomination? It has been one month since the nominator's last post. I glanced at the page and see just a block of text. Subheads are the first thing needed. You may wish to apply for copyediting help at WP:GOCE. Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah I think this DYK can probably be closed. I submitted it far too early. I started the article very late at night when I was sleeping, and submitted it, when it still needed a lot of work. user:Winged Blades of Godric came in, reviewed the DYK and rewrote the article, which I thought was nice and really cool and I copy-edited later, and later still added sections as requested. I don't think DYK is for me, as I tend to take some time to create an article, usually months, e.g. Platt Report 1959. Thanks. Please close this. scope_creep (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: actually, with your reorganization, the article looks in better shape now. I'd like to re-review it in a little while, as it seems Winged Blades of Godric has recused himself by rewriting the article. I have added him to the DYK co-credits. Yoninah (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ok scope_creep (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've gone over the article and added a few "citation needed" tags to information that needs to be sourced. I would also like you to suggest a new hook – something that will "hook" the reader's interest, not an explanatory sentence. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I will update the article tomorrow. Yip, any help with the hook is cool. scope_creep (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah that is the citations added to the article as requested. There from a journal article, that discusses the design of the piano.scope_creep (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

To try and get this nom "unstuck", how about the following Alt?

ALT2 - ... that because the Neo-Bechstein electric grand piano was built without a sound board to dissipate energy, it was described as having "organlike expressive possibilities"?

Best, Mifter (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Scope creep. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yip, that looks good. scope_creep^Talk 12:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Think the paraphrasing is still a bit close in places - for example, "organlike expressive possibilities" warrants quoting. Also, could page references be added to the book sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria: How are you? Happy New Year!! Will do, but it will be a few days. I am on slow time at the moment. I think organlike expressive possibilities is a direct quote. I can find the person who said it. scope_creep^Talk 00:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria: I have taken away the close paraphrasing, added a references, and added the page numbers per. scope_creep^Talk 00:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria: I have fixed that last page number that was missing as per instruction. scope_creep^Talk 03:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Great. Looks like the issue of close paraphrasing has been pretty well sorted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

New reviewer needed to check ALT2 and the article in general; previous reviewer is now listed as a contributor. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
New enough and long enough. The main hook sounds ok but would be snappier with "that was" removed, but in any case it is unacceptable as the university is not even mentioned in the article, let alone cited. Similar problem with ALT2, the "expressive possibilities" quote is not in the article. No copyvio detected in current version. The two photographs are suitably licensed, but the keyboard transmission scheme diagram is under fair use. I don't think this is compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. The diagram is not historically significant (as opposed to the mechanism itself), the author played no significant part in the article subject (if he did, why isn't he mentioned) and, most importantly, a simple diagram like this is easily reproducible as an svg file (the preferred format for diagrams). Losing the German language annotation would also be beneficial on the English Wikipedia. Two previous DYK credits so QPQ not needed. SpinningSpark 13:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I will start updating the diagram tomorrow into an svg. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  - Hi @Spinningspark: That is it updated again. New diagram and no german language annotation. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    - The image is fine now. I see you have now removed the original German titles in the "Literature" section. When I spoke of German annotation, I was referring only to the diagram. Having the true title of a work with a translated title is actually beneficial so I would suggest reverting that. There still remains the problem that we do not have an acceptable hook. SpinningSpark 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
      - ~~You werent clear in your instructions.~~ I will revert. New Hook tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 20:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
        @Spinningspark: My mistake. A possible hook: that the Neo-Bechstein was one of the first pioneer electric grand piano, where the mechanics of the piano were no longer involved in the direct production of sound.

scope_creep^Talk 20:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

that needs copyeditng for grammar and format, but as a cited fact its ok. Approving for ALT3 SpinningSpark 21:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT3:... that the Neo-Bechstein was one of the pioneer electric grand pianos where the mechanics of the piano were no longer involved in the direct production of sound?