Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Major thirds tuning/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Major thirds tuning

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Issues appear to have been resolved. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including entire sections like the "Ergonomic Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — I've removed the two sections you mention. As they were not part of the original GA nom, and are (as you noted) completely uncited. Actually, they verge on AI phrasing (but online detectators were negative) and don't really seem like things that RS talk about to begin with. Both added by IPs last year ( ). I've also removed another uncited section added by random IPs . Otherwise, this article is very well cited and thorough enough, especially so for a nom as old as 2012. Seems worthwhile to keep as a GA. – Aza24 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: I have added some citation needed templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! I will make a note to adderess this in mid April, when I return from vacation. – Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks like we've just got three left:
      • The most viable M3 tunings are: [list] – added since the GA nomination, and seems like OR. If there's no objections, this could easily go.
      • For fundamental-chord fingerings, major-thirds tuning's simplicity and consistency are not shared by standard tuning – was introduced uncited. I'm wondering if this is even needed, since later sections directly contrast the challenges and boons of using each system. Again, this could easily go.
      • chords with five-six strings have greater volume than chords with three-four strings and so are useful for acoustic guitars (for example, acoustic-electric guitars without amplification) – I actually think this verges on SKYISBLUE: a chord with more vibrating strings will be louder than a similar chord with less. There's a slight tinge of OR with the last part, but this could be solved with a rephrase to "chords with five-six strings have greater volume than chords with three-four strings without external amplification".
      Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 13:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @UpTheOctave!: for the analysis of the remaining uncited passages. I managed to readjust the first one slightly to remove the uncited info, but keep the other tuning I was finding reference to. I agree that the third is too obvious to warrant inclusion (and indeed I was unable to find a ref for it). I think the second can be removed as well without concern. I think we are good here @Z1720:. – Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that these changes get a thumbs-up from me; thank you for being proactive on this. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:UpTheOctave!, User:Aza24, User:Z1720: What is your assessment of this article now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As with Aza, I see no reason not to retain the article at GA, as long as Z1720 has not found any other issues. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Major_thirds_tuning/1&oldid=1350424502"