Wikipedia:Peer review/List of national instruments/archive2

List of national instruments

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm planning on bringing this to FLC soon, and I'd like to get feedback. A few things to ponder:

Should I strictly use only images and sounds that are representative of the tradition in question? For example, there are similar, if not identical, instruments listed for Sakha and Tuva - neighboring regions of Russia, but we have a picture of only one; I used the same picture for both because I'm fairly certain that any differences between them are indistinguishable or nearly so from the photograph, and because it's better to include a photo than not, even if it's not the perfect images. Similarly, the "guitar" and "accordion" listed for several countries, and I've done my best to include the most useful possible photos, but most of the images of guitars on the Commons (and elsewhere) don't even say where the instrument is from. Even if there is a difference between the Argentinian guitar or accordion and other such instruments, I suspect that, in practical terms, many Argentinians probably don't use "Argentinian guitars" or accordions. But then we come to the Serbian/Macedonian/Yugoslavian gusle, and the issue becomes closely intertwined with nationalism and such, so I haven't used the picture of the Serbian gusle for the Macedonian entry, though as far as I am aware, there is no difference between the Serbian and Macedonian gusles. Sorry if all this is confusing, but I'd like to get feedback, and I'd be glad to change it to whatever rule there is a consensus for.
Some of these instruments are described as a "national instrument" in a historical context. The Bavarian zither reference is from 1954, for example, and the Pipil carimba is from 1878, the Indian veena is from 1905, the Swiss alphorn from 1827 - these are old, obviously, but the list also includes purely historical national instruments, like for ancient Greece and Egypt. I considered adding the year the instrument was called a "national instrument", but I worry that that would be original research-like, in the absence of a source documenting that an instrument is no longer considered a national instrument. Any thoughts?
I thought it would be interesting to make a little chart showing the number of different kinds of instruments by region - so you could look at it and easily see that there are six chordophone national instruments in Europe, for example. But that might be considered original research too.

Thanks, Tuf-Kat (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for the koto being Japan's national instrument is a person's web site. I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#List of national instruments if anyone could find references that are more reliable, and received a reply there. The one that looks most reliable is britannica.com. Fg2 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll make that switch. Tuf-Kat (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks good to me, quite detailed and good refs. Some hopefully useful comments follow:

I think the current photos are OK - I can understand not using some if it would cause controversey. You can also add more specific images as they become available in the future. The explanation in the lead about photos is good.
I would use the actual name of the scholar here: Some scholars have pointed to the "influence of intellectuals and nationalists...
I would add the words "Hornbostel-Sachs number" to the "Intrument" column caption.
I would add the word "Image" to the "Other names" column caption. I would also not sort this column.
Since the list is called "national instruments" what about those entries that are not a nation (African American, Arab, etc?). Should there be a note of the nations involved if this is not clear already?
Where there is no image or alternate name, I think the backgrond should be white - the tan color is distracting.
The references are so small that I think they are nearly illegible. I would make them larger.
Finally, I would make it clearer in the lead how these were chosen as "national instruments". What were the general criteria used? Did it have to say in the source that the X is the national instrument of Y?

Hope this helps, this is an interesting list. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I've addressed all your concerns, I think. I've made the criteria more explicit - essentially, you're right, I used about any source that called something a "national instrument". Everything on the list is, I think, a nation in the sense meant here, and in any case, I applied the tradition that the source used without editorial modification.
- Why was this page archived so quickly? Tuf-Kat (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The history here does not show it was archived - can you provide a diff? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm just basing it off it not longer being at WP:PR. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]