Review
(criteria) |
- OK I will nominate the schema and set up an MVR. The information page can be improved, not a problem. About the name, I'd say they're informative but not "vital", I've played the instrument for 20 years without knowing them. The section view can be interesting though. --Eusebius (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Comparing a cut-away and a photograph is a bit difficult. It would be better to compare it with that picture IMO. --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's difficult. The picture you're pointing is outside the current scope. Do you think the scope should be widened to something like "Brass instrument mouthpiece", or do you mean it would be valuable to make a similar photograph with the trumpet mouthpiece, trying to show the inside of the cup? With the trumpet mouthpiece I'm afraid it might be less obviously illustrative (than with a horn mouthpiece) because of the cup shape and size. --Eusebius (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better to change the scope to "Brass instrument mouthpiece"because a mp of a saxophone as example is very different. And I would change the scope of the cut-away into "schematic drawing of a mouthpiece" --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hum, currently the scope is "trumpet mouthpiece", it is actually narrower than "brass instrument mouthpiece", and neither include the sax. The question is, do you think restricting to the trumpet is too narrow? I must think about that idea of having a scope for the photograph and one for the diagram, I am currently unsure of my opinion about it. --Eusebius (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first saw the gallery Mouthpiece, I was going to say the scope should be broadened to "brass instrument mouthpiece" because the horn's looks very similar, but then i saw File:Mouthpiece tenor saxophone.jpg which definitely deserves it's own scope. (You said it wouldn't include the sax, but isn't that a brass instrument? It's in the subcat of Category:Parts of brass instruments. Or is it a woodwind because it has a reed?) Rocket000(talk) 17:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sax vs. Horn - thats exactly what I don't know, too. The scope should be only representative for one type of construction --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually sax is a woodwind. The kind of mouthpiece (i.e. is it your lips that vibrate to produce sound), and not the material, is what defines a brass instrument (a wooden horn is a brass instrument, for instance). I should work on improving the categorization of mouthpiece. --Eusebius (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At german Wikipedia there is a difference between brass instrument mouthpieces and woodwind mouthpieces where saxophone is WW. The scope should be only representative for one type of construction - how about "Brass instrument mouthpiece" ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) If we go for "Brass instrument mouthpiece", how do we decide that a horn/trumpet/whatever mouthpiece is more representative than a flugelhorn/tuba/trombone/whatever mouthpiece? They are all based on the same principle but they can be visually distinguished from each other. A collection picture would be great, but we don't have any at the time. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In german they called this kind of construction "Kesselmundstück" - (trans. kettle mouth part ?) how about the construction definition for a appropriate scope ? --Richard Bartz (talk)
- I don't get you? --Eusebius (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ha ha :-) this kind of trumpet mouthpart has in german language a name for it's construction which is called "kesselmundstück" translated in english it means kettle-mouth-part .. kettle or bowl for the inner shape of it - i'am not shure for the correct translation - is there a definition for the construction in english ? (bowl shaped, funnel-shaped)--Richard Bartz (talk)
- Oh ok. Brass instrument mouthpieces are classified according to the shape of the cup (trumpet is more "round", horn is more like a cone, cornet has an almost flat bottom). My mother tongue is French, I know there are technical names for it but I know only the one for the cornet (cuvette) and I'm not even sure of it. I've no idea about English terms. We'd need a professional (or a very well documented wikipedia...), should we categorize the different brass instruments (and I probably should see one from time to time in order to make this mouthpiece produce a sound, but that's another problem). I'm personally unable to do this classification (right now). --Eusebius (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after working on Mouthpiece to get a better idea, I think the scope should be "Brass instrument mouthpiece". Now that I know that saxes are definitely woodwinds. :) "Trumpet mouthpiece" is too narrow. Yes, there obvious difference between a trumpet's and a French horn's, but it's not that more considerable than the variation between trumpets themselves. Usually I view VI scope in terms of "would this be the first image I choose to illustrate it's encyclopedia article?" In this case: en:Mouthpiece (brass). Yes. However, that also makes the illustration more appealing. So I'm still undecided. (Sorry guys, it's tough.) Rocket000(talk) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try that. --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Scope changed from Trumpet mouthpiece to Brass instrument mouthpiece --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
- I strongly suspect the best picture for the scope would include at least the three most important types of brass mouthpieces; trumpet, french horn and trombone/tuba. And as especially trumpet mouthpieces go there are a wide range of cup depths etc.--oskila (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree on the first sentence, not on the second one: I'm afraid the variations in structure for a same instrument wouldn't be that noticeable on a picture. --Eusebius (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scores:
1. Embouchure profil.jpg: 0
2. Trumpet mouthpiece scheme.svg: +1
=>
File:Embouchure profil.jpg: Declined.
File:Trumpet mouthpiece scheme.svg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
