Talk:Ophicleide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Ophicleide has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 18, 2025. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Ophicleide appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 July 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Replacement vs. addition
I have an article-length history of the ophicleide that I wrote in grad school. I could it contribute here, but it wouldn't really look like a revision of the existing article. Does anyone have feelings about replacing vs. editing? I'd rather not put it in if someone is just going to revert it right back. . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srhanna (talk • contribs) 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Ophicleide in Fiction
Excellent Page. I was directed here after reading about the Ophicleide in Theodore Sturgeon's short story "And Now the News..." (1956).
He describes a "twelve-keyed 1824 fifty-inch obsolete brass ophicleide" gathing dust in a country store. "The store keeper explained how his Great-Grandfather had brought it over from the old country and nobody had played it for two generations excet an itinerent tuba player who had turned pale green on the first three notes and put it down as it if were full of percussion caps."
The sound is later described as "like no music currently heard on this or any other planet".
Obviously, Ophicleide players have to have a good sense of humor.
Joe Patent (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Picture
The Picture does not fit the description or diagram of the instrument. Could the picture be that of an early Euphonium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.42.167.131 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Range?
The article describes multiple sizes of instrument, from soprano to contrabass. A range is given in the inset box, but no information as to which size of ophicleide this range applies to. Surely not all the instruments have the same sounding range? Clarification needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Wrong end of the century.
Brian "Cabbage" Holmes is not an "early twentieth century musician". He was born sometime around 1950. Gambaguru (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nor does the article say he is/was. It says that the frustration of musicians in the early twentieth century led to doggerel such as the one cited. It could be worded more clearly, I suppose.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Nominator: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 00:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
GA review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ophicleide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Initial comment
The article could, and arguably should, be given a quick fail, criterion 3 for which is It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include ... large numbers of {{citation needed}}. Citation needed tags are called for in the 5th, 6th and 7th paras of History, the 1st and 2nd of Construction, the 3rd of Performance and the 2nd of Repertoire.
I found this an interesting and well-researched article, and although the clunky tabloidese false titles ("by French instrument maker Jean Hilaire Asté", "Newsletter editor Paul Schmidt" etc) are obtrusive, that is a stylistic matter that does not affect the eligibility of the article for GA.
I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you a chance to attend to the missing citations. Tim riley talk 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for starting the article review. I've gone through and added citations to the unreferenced paragraphs as you pointed out, and expanded the modern repertoire a little (mainly about the Sydney Ophicleide Quartet and recent composers and commissions), and a couple of minor corrections around Sam Hughes and choro music. — Jon (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
That was quick work! All the referencing now evidently in order. The article seems to me to meet all six GA criteria (though it would be presumptuous of me to pronounce on whether it addresses all the main aspects of the topic or on how neutral it is: to my layman's eye it has every appearance of thoroughness and balance).
I am not conscious of ever having heard the instrument played, and have dug out a recording of Glinka's Trio pathétique in D minor, which is charming – a real foot-tapper of a finale. Thank you for turning my attention in that direction.
Meanwhile, promoting to GA. (Are you sure I can't persuade you to heal the bruising false titles?)
- Hi Tim – thanks for the quick review. I'll certainly try fixing up the false titles (I didn't even know that was a thing!) here and in other articles where I've been using that style. For a good listen, both Nick Byrne and Patrick Wibart are phenomenal players, and their CDs seem to be on YouTube, e.g. Wibart's Virtuoso Ophicleide (2015). — Jon (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Did you know nomination
- 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 SonOfYoutubers talk 06:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
... that the ophicleide (an early 19th century brass instrument that used keys before the invention of valves) was used in British brass bands before being replaced by the euphonium?
- Source: Yeo, Douglas (2021). "ophicleide". An Illustrated Dictionary for the Modern Trombone, Tuba, and Euphonium Player. Dictionaries for the Modern Musician. Peterson, Lennie (illustrator). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-1-5381-5966-8. LCCN 2021020757. OCLC 1249799159. OL 34132790M. Wikidata Q111040546.
- ALT1: ... that the ophicleide (pictured) was used in early British brass bands in the 19th century before being replaced by the euphonium? Source: Yeo, Douglas (2021). "ophicleide". An Illustrated Dictionary for the Modern Trombone, Tuba, and Euphonium Player. Dictionaries for the Modern Musician. Peterson, Lennie (illustrator). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 99. ISBN 978-1-5381-5966-8. LCCN 2021020757. OCLC 1249799159. OL 34132790M. Wikidata Q111040546.
- Comment: I'm not sure if the bit in parentheses may or may not be needed; almost nobody will know what an ophicleide is, but then that's what DYK is about, I guess?
Jon (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC).
- There's actually rule about using parentheses in hook, or more specifically, a rule about not using parentheses in hooks unless absolutely necessary: see WP:DYK200. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- A couple of referencing issues have been found - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems: - The original hook is not valid for using parentheses without acceptable justification.
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
The article was promoted to good article status on June 18, and was nominated for DYK on June 20, which is in the seven-day period. It is long enough with 11532 characters (1780 words) of readable prose size. No copyright violations, plagiarism or close paraphrasing have been found in the article. The image presented is licensed under CC Attribution 3.0 Unported, used in the article and looks good at a 100px resolution. No QPQ is required for this nomination.
While the article is well-sourced for the most part, I found a couple of statements in conflict with their inline references.
- Saverio Mercadante is not mentioned to have composed for the ophicleide in his early work (source doesn't even mention his name).
- What is stated in the first and third pharagraphs of "Performance" don't match their inline citations.
Once these issues are dealt with in a satisfactory manner, this nomination will be approved. Also as Narutolovehinata5 has pointed out, ALT0 uses parenthesis when it shouln't unless it is "absolutely unavoidable". I crossed it out and instead we shall work with ALT1 as the default one. NeoGaze (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I have done a bit of surprise copy editing and fixing of sources on the article, which I'm putting down to edit-rot i.e. a high volume of edits to get the article into shape for GA, which drifted the prose away from the original refs...! Can you have another look at those spots and let me know what you think. Cheers — Jon (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
@Jonathanischoice: Thank you for your quick reply and fix. Now I can approve this nomination. NeoGaze (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Pronunciation
In a recent edit summary, I said there were no optional pronunciations given in the dictionaries. That is not quite accurate. They do all agree that it ends with "klyde", and "kleed" is never mentioned. However, there is an option to pronounce either "OFF-ih-klyde" or "OH-fih-klyde". I hope that makes sense. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Trying to account for more regional varieties of English: Oxford University Press's online New Zealand dictionary also offers only the -klyde ending, and doesn't mention -kleed. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest you use the most consistent one or the most commonly in use today. You may mention other pronunciations if they were relevant in the past at some point, or put a note explaining the divergence of pronunciations. NeoGaze (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- This (the most consistent and most common) is indeed what I changed it to. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest you use the most consistent one or the most commonly in use today. You may mention other pronunciations if they were relevant in the past at some point, or put a note explaining the divergence of pronunciations. NeoGaze (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing this; I have been listening to Jake Klein and Jack Adler-McKean on the History of the Tuba podcast, who are pronouncing it "-kleed" which in context might(?) be how it is pronounced in French or German? — Jon (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ha! Yes I think you've got it exactly. Dictionaries for German and French both show pronunciations that are unlike the English one. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Sound
Nice article, may I suggest that the infobox could be improved by a link to an ophicleide being played, such as c:File:Ophicleide_by_Charles_Pace.webm? Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's oddly inspiring, hearing a very determined and very musical player play a clunky and out-of-tune instrument as smoothly and as in-tune as it can possibly go. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Don't be fooled... have a listen to this ophicleide duet! — Jon (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think I was fooled - I think the recording you linked to is using better instruments. By clunky and out-of-tune, I meant the particular example he was holding, not ophicleides in general. (It's also possible that he had to use a mouthpiece that wasn't a great match for that instrument, which can throw things off quite a bit.) TooManyFingers (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Don't be fooled... have a listen to this ophicleide duet! — Jon (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just added it to the article in the performance section, where I believe its most appropiate. Thanks! NeoGaze (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for digging that up... I can see now that "Did You Know" is great for exposure! — Jon (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)