Wikipedia:Peer review/Timpani/archive1

Timpani

I would like to submit this article to FAC. I was waiting to get pictures, which I now have. In the meantime, I also went back and verified the factual correctness of the information against the references I listed (i.e., I didn't just stick some references at the bottom so I could meet the FAC criteria) since I wrote this before references were a "thing" on Wikipedia.

I feel this article really demonstrates the advantages Wikipedia has on a traditional encyclopedia. It gives information that is interesting to all different types of people. There's a history section, that's a given, but there's also a lot of more practical information that would be of great interest to the musically inclined.

– flamurai^TM 22:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

A specific question: Do you think the TOC is too long? I am thinking of converting most of the last level of headings into HTML headings instead of Wiki headings so they don't show up in the TOC. – flamurai^TM 16:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I do. Not only is the ToC too long, making it look unappealing at the beginning of the article, but many of the sections are very short, and this also looks unappealing. It makes it look like those topics have been covered too briefly, when in fact that is not the case. I think if you join some of them together under broader headings, the look and feel of the article will improve dramatically. Rossrs 09:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how to fix it? The only think I can think of is changing the "special effects" section into more of a list. I think that's the worst offender. – flamurai (t) 21:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa there, sailor. We don't use HTML headings. HTML is seriously deprecated around here, used only when it's unavoidable. If the TOC is too long, then (as suggested above), maybe you have too many short sections. The wiki headings are semantic markup. Don't chuck them in favor of unstructured HTML. grendel|khan 20:24, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

I swear I remember some tutorial or MoS section somewhere saying, "when you don't want a section to show up in the TOC, use equivalent HTML headings." – flamurai (t) 21:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

How do you guys feel about the sectioning now? I removed the third-level subsections from "special effects" and "tuning", but left them under "machine timpani" since it helps to clarify the distinct types of machine timpani. – flamurai (t) 02:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for not answering your earlier question. I think you've made a huge improvement. I don't know much about the subject, but to my untrained eye, you've now got a very good balance. Rossrs 13:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful article, very comprehensive, and I especially like the pictures. One thing you might want to consider, though, is moving the "History" section all the way to the top of the article. Right now the article begins with everything about modern-day timpani and only at the end describes their history. The sudden jump backwards in time in the "History" section felt like a discontinuity to me. Wouldn't it be better to follow the development through time of the instrument first, and only then describe the contemporary aspects? Cheers. --Plek 17:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. My reason for putting the history section at the end is that I feel it's more relevant to describe their modern use first. I think that's what most people would be interested in who are coming to the article. This order is more like, "here's what timpani are, and here's where they came from". It'd work either way, though. I've considered putting the history section up front before. – flamurai (t) 05:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)